(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Papers on Palestine."

Papers on Palestine 

A COLLECTION OF STATEMENTS, 

ARTICLES AND LETTERS DEALING WITH 

THE PALESTINE PROBLEM 



N • 1 



CHAWGt 



THE LIBRARY 
OF 

THE UNIVERSITY 

OF TEXAS 

AT 

AUSTIN 



N 



pnirn*i> hi u ■ i 




Issued by 

The Institute of Arab American Affairs, Inc. 
160 Broadway, New York, N.Y. 

*W5 




Papers on Palestine 

A COLLECTION OF STATEMENTS, 

ARTICLES AND LETTERS DEALING WITH 

THE PALESTINE PROBLEM 



Issued by 

The Institute of Arab American Affairs, Inc* 

1 60 Broadway, New York, N.Y. 

1945 



BINDERY 

OCT 21 1975 



PREFACE 

One of the tragic legacies of the last war is the 
problem of Palestine. That country, revered by- 
Christians, Moslems and Jews alike, has fallen prey 
to political machinations. The land of the prophets who 
preached peace on earth and love for fellowmen has enjoyed 
no peace for the last quarter of a century. Its inhabitants, who 
are mainly Arabicized descendants of the old Semitic stock 
and are peace-loving, law-abiding folks, have been the vic- 
tims of power politics and inimical propaganda. Their only 
"crime" is that they hold tenaciously to their land and culture 
and resist an alien invasion that would deprive them of their 
elemental rights and their chance for a healthy and progres- 
sive development. Yet very little is known about their legiti- 
mate hopes and aspirations, they having no spokesmen, no 
poets to sing their song, while a huge mass of literature put 
out by the highly financed and internationally organized 
Zionist movement attempts to discredit them and their 
brethren in the surrounding countries. Even the ordinary 
channels of communication, including radio> press and pulpit, 
are usually denied them. 

The Institute of Arab American Affairs, Inc., whose aim 
is to encourage friendship and promote understanding be- 
tween the United States and the Arabic-speaking peoples, 
deems it a public duty to publish the following papers dealing 
with the problem of Palestine, with the hope that the reader 
might be able to formulate a more intelligent opinion about it. 



i 




TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. Testimony of Professor Philip K. Hitti before the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Represen- 
tatives I 

II. Testimony of Mr. Faris S. Malouf before the Com- 
mittee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives 6 

III. Testimony of Mr. K. S. Twitchell before the Com- 
mittee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives 13 

IV. Palestinian Arabs Descended from Natives before 
Abraham 

by Professor Philip K. Hitti 16 

V. Arab Nationalism and Political Zionism 

by Professor William Ernest Hocking 21 

VI. The Voice of the Arabs 

by Professor Jabir Shibli 29 

VII. The Palestine Mandate 

by Sir John Hope Simpson 33 

VIII. A Letter by the Honorable J. W. Bailey to Greens- 
boro Committee for the Abrogation of the White 
Paper 44 

IX. A Letter by Professor Roger H. Soltau. Written in 
Reply to One Which Appeared in the New York 
Times 47 

X. A Letter by Professor Philip Marshall Brown to the 

New York Herald Tribune 50 

XL A Letter by Professor Stuart C. Dodd to the New 

York Herald Tribune 52 



Additional Readings on Palestine 



54 



Tii i following three testimonies were given at the 
hearings held February 15 and 16, 1944, before the 
('ommiUcc on Foreign Affairs, House of Repre- 
sentatives, on a proposed resolution that reads: 

"Whereas the Sixty-seventh Congress of the United States 
00 June 30, 1922, unanimously resolved 'that the United 
Statea of America favors the establishment in Palestine of 
a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly under- 
stood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the 
civil and religious rights of Christian and all other non- 
Jewish communities in Palestine, and that the holy places and 
religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately 
protected' ; and 

"Whereas the ruthless persecution of the Jewish people 
in Europe has clearly demonstrated the need of a Jewish 
homeland as a haven for the large numbers who have become 
homeless as a result of this persecution : Therefore be it 
Resolved, That the United States shall use its good offices 
and take appropriate measures to the end that the doors of 
Palestine shall be opened for the free entry of Jews into that 
country, and that there shall be full opportunity for coloniza- 
tion, so that the Jewish people may ultimately reconstitute 
Palestine as a free and democratic Jewish commonwealth." 

This resolution was shelved by Congress following repre- 
sentations made by the Chief of Staff, the War Department 
and the Department of State. 



TESTIMONY OF PHILIP K. HITTI 

Pkofessorof Semitic Literature, Princeton University 

before 
The Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives 

on 

Resolutions Relative to the Jewish National Home 

in Palestine 

February 15, 1944 

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Committee: 

From the Arab point of view political Zionism is an exotic movement, 
internationally financed, artificially stimulated and holds no hope of ulti- 
mate or permanent success. Not only to the fifty million Arabs, many of 
whom are descendants of the Canaanites who were in the land long 
before the Hebrews entered Palestine under Joshua, but to the entire 
Moslem society, of whom the Arabs form the spearhead, a sovereign 
Jewish state in Palestine appears as an anachronism. These Moslems con- 
stitute a somewhat self-conscious society of about 275,000,000, who 
dominate a large portion of Africa and Asia. Even if the Zionist political 
program, supported by British and American diplomacy and bayonets, 
should someday become a reality, what chance of survival has such an 
alien state amidst a camp of a would-be hostile Arabic and unsympathetic 
Islamic world? There was a time in which a foreign state, a Latin one, 
was established in the Holy Land, but its memory lives today only in 
books on the Crusades. 

For, be it remembered, on no other issue did the Moslems in modern 
times seem to manifest such a unanimity. Even on the question of the 
restoration of the caliphate, after it was destroyed by Mustafa Kamal in 
1924, there has been more friction and less solidarity, as evidenced by 
the proceedings of the Islamic congresses held in Cairo and Mecca. 
Verbal protests against the Zionist political program, which this resolu- 
tion adopts, and cash to fight its provisions have poured in the last two 
decades from Morocco to Malay. In India a "Palestine day" was cele- 
brated in 1936 and the All India Moslem League passed a resolution at 

[ i ] 



its annual session on October 18, 1939, and another in its April meeting 
of 1943 warning the British against converting Palestine into a Jewish 
state. Jerusalem in Moslem eyes is the third haram, the third holy city 
after Mecca and Medina, It was the first qiblah> the first direction in 
which the early Moslems prayed before they began to turn in prayer 
toward Mecca. The land was given by Allah as a result of a jihad (holy 
war) and therefore for the Moslems to relinquish their claim on it con- 
stitutes a betrayal of their faith. It is even more sacred to the Christians, 
of whom there are some 130,000 in Palestine. 

This uncompromising, persistent opposition to political Zionism, 
whose cause the resolution espoused, does not spell anti-Semitism. Of all 
the major peoples of the world, the Arabs perhaps come nearest to being 
free from race prejudice. Besides, they, like the Jews, are Semites, and 
they know it. They also know that their two religions are closest of kin, 
closer than either of them is to Christianity. Nowhere throughout medie- 
val and modern times were Jews better treated than in Moslem-Arab 
lands. So welcome were American Jewish ambassadors to the Sublime 
Porte at Constantinople that our Government appointed three of them in 
a row ; Straus, Elkus and Morgenthau. 

These Arabs and Moslems cannot understand why the Jewish prob- 
lem, which is not of their making, should be solved at their expense. They 
deeply sympathize with the afflicted Jews but are not convinced that 
Palestine solves the Jewish problem; Palestine does not qualify as a 
country without a people ready to receive a people without a country. 
They fail to understand why the American legislators, so solicitous for 
the welfare of the European Jews, should not lift the bars of immigra- 
tion and admit Jewish refugees, millions of whom could be settled on the 
unoccupied plains of Arizona or Texas. This certainly falls within their 
jurisdiction. The word "reconstitute" in the resolution would no doubt 
interest them, and they would like to remake the map of Europe and put 
up their claim on Spain, which they held at a much later date and for a 
longer period of time. Some of them would raise the question how would 
the people of the United States react to a suggestion from, say, Russia 
to reconstitute Oklahoma an Indian territory. They realize they have no 
spokesmen in America, no high pressure groups, no machinery for influ- 
encing American public opinion or legislation, but they are willing to 
rest their case upon its merits and upon America's sense of justice. 

Some of them may have forgotten the Anglo-French declaration of 
November 8, 19 18, promising the peoples so long oppressed by the Turks 
complete and definitive liberation and "the establishment of national gov- 
ernments and administrations drawing their authority from the initiative 
and free choice of the indigenous population" ; or the words of Woodrow 



[ 2 ] 



Wilson's twelfth point that the non-Turkish "nationalities which are 
■now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life 
and an absolute opportunity of autonomous development" ; or the corre- 
sponding provision in the Covenant of the League of Nations, article 22 ; 
but they certainly do remember the third article of the Atlantic Charter 
that Great Britain and the United States "respect the right of all peoples 
to choose the form of government under which they will live." 

* * * 

No Westerner, or Ifranji as called in Arabic, is more highly respected 
and more implicitly trusted by the Arab and Moslem people than the 
American. There is reason for it. For years American teachers, preach- 
ers, physicians, archeologists, pilgrims and philanthropists have fre- 
quented the eastern shore of the Mediterranean with the intent of giving 
rather than taking and with no imperialistic designs. The American Press 
at Beirut, the first well equipped press in that region, celebrated its hun- 
dredth anniversary eight years ago. The American University of Beirut 
celebrated its seventy-fifth anniversary three years ago. In this institu- 
tion a large part of the leaders of thought and action throughout the 
Arab East were trained. In the first World War and the immediate 
period following, no less than one hundred million dollars was raised by 
the American public to relieve suffering among the people of the Near 
East and to rehabilitate their land — an unparalleled figure in the history 
of private philanthropy. No wonder the word "American" has become 
associated in the minds of Arabs and Moslems with fair play, honorable 
dealing and democratic conduct. All this reservoir of good-will accumu- 
lated through generations of unselfish and hard working Americans will 
be threatened with destruction by the passage of the resolution now be- 
fore this committee. 

The people of the United States are not only interested in winning the 
war but in contributing to the establishment of a postwar world order in 
which regional stability is somewhat secure and the chances of future 
conflicts are at least reduced. Nothing, in the judgment of the speaker, is 
more conducive to a state of perpetual unrest and conflict than the estab- 
lishment of a "Jewish commonwealth" at the expense of the Arabs in 
Palestine. If such a commonwealth were established at the insistence of 
the United States, we then assume moral responsibility for its preserva- 
tion. Will the people of the United States be willing to send their navy 
to protect such a commonwealth if established? 



The British never contemplated such an ambitious scheme as the con- 
version of Palestine into a "Jewish commonwealth." Sandwiched in 

[ 3 ] 



between conflicting promises to the Arabs (which made the once-prom- 
ised land multipromised), the Balfour declaration, which was echoed in 
the United States Congress resolution of 1922, viewed with favor, "the 
establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people" — 
quite a different thing from converting Palestine into a Jewish state. And 
that was viewed with a big proviso : "It being understood that nothing 
shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of non- 
Jewish communities in Palestine." The Zionist representatives proposed 
to the then British Government this text "the reconstitution of Palestine 
as the national home of the Jewish people," which is practically the same 
as the resolution before us has it ; but that was not the text adopted. 
In its white paper of June 3, 1922, the British Government said : 

"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the 
purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have 
been used such as that Palestine is to become as Jewish as England 
is English. His majesty's Government regard such expectation as 
unpracticable and have no such aim in view. . . . They would draw 
attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do 
not contemplate that Palestine as a whole be converted into a Jewish 
national home but that such a home should be founded in Palestine. 
When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish 
national home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the im- 
position of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as 
a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish com- 
munity, with the assistance of Jews from other parts of the world, 
^n order that it may become a center in which the Jewish people as 
a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest 
and a pride." 
In its statement of Policy of 1937 the British Government declared: 

"that their obligations to Arabs and Jews respectively were not 
incompatible, on the assumption that in the process of time the two 
races would so adjust their national aspirations as to render possible 
the establishment of a single commonwealth under a unitary 
government." 

In the 1939 Statement it was again made clear that Palestine shall be 
constituted a sovereign independent state, a Palestinian state in which all 
Palestinians — irrespective of race or origin — will be citizens enjoying 
equal political, civil and religious rights. In that statement the provision 
was made for limiting Jewish immigration for economic as well as polit- 
ical reasons. Even then the British administration of Palestine has been 



[ 4 ] 



confronted throughout its history with a series of strikes and disturb- 
ances beginning April, 1920, and culminating in the serious revolution 

of J 93 6 - 

As early as August, 1919, and before Arab nationalism attained the 

intensity that it has since assumed, the King-Crane Commission sent by 
President Wilson reported as follows : "A national home for the Jewish 
people is not equivalent to making Palestine into a Jewish State ; nor can 
the erection of such a Jewish State be accomplished without the greatest 
trespass upon the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish com- 
munities in Palestine." The report warned that the Zionist program 
could not be carried out except by force of arms. 

* * # 

The more enlightened and realistic among the Zionists themselves have 
begun to adopt the British Government point of view, concentrate on the 
cultural and spiritual aspects of their cause and cooperate with the Arabs. 
Dr. Judah L. Magnes, president of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem 
—a Zionist institution— declared in September, 1941, "As far as I am 
able to see, there is no chance whatsoever that this formula 'establish- 
ment of Palestine as a Jewish commonwealth' instead of a national home 
in Palestine would be acceptable by any responsible Arab or Arab party 
or any part of Arabic public opinion." The Union Association organized 
in September, 1942, by Zionists in Jerusalem declared its conviction that 
the problem of Palestine was inseparable from that of the Near East, 
advocated a Jewish Arab state and held that the two peoples' equality 
was vital to the future of Palestine, Robert M. Hyamson, British Zionist, 
in Palestine; A Policy (i94 2 ) interprets "national" as pertaining to 
nationality rather than nation. President Julian Morgenstem, of Hebrew 
Union College, Cincinnati, in his last contribution entitled Nation, 
People, Religion: What Are We? declares: 

"Despite the oft-repeated, high sounding asseverations of the 
beneficent role which a restored Jewish state or commonwealth may 
play or will play in setting a happy pattern of equitable social rela- 
tions for all other nations to emulate, the most recent formulation of 
which is in the highly bombastic peroration of the so-called Pales- 
tine resolution of the American Jewish Conference, the fact incon- 
testably established by history still confronts us with brazen truth, 
that the true genius and destiny of Israel find expression only in its 
role as a religious people, the bearers of a spiritual heritage." 
Thus we see that the passage of this Resolution now before your Com- 
mittee is inimical to the best interests of the Arabs, the Americans, the 
British and even the Jews. 

[ 5 ] 



II 



TESTIMONY OF FARIS S. MALOUF 

President, Syrian and Lebanese Federation of the 
Eastern States 

BEFORE 

The Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives 

on 
Resolutions Relative to the Jewish National Home in Palestine 

February 16, 1944 



Mr, Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

The only question before your Committee is whether or not the Con- 
gress should adopt this Resolution and whether or not the United States 
can properly use its good offices with the government of Great Britain to 
abrogate the White Paper of 1939 and advocate the establishment of a 
Jewish commonwealth in Palestine. I as a citizen of the United States 
question the advisability of the adoption of this Resolution and very 
much question the right of the United States to interfere in this matter. I 
also think that the rank and file of American citizens will not want to 
have anything to do with the Palestine controversy although they will 
very much) like to help solve the Jewish problem and protect the Jews 
against persecution. Rabbi Wise [Stephen S. Wise, Chairman, American 
Zionist Emergency Council] stated yesterday that he thinks an over- 
whelming majority of the American people, if given an opportunity to 
vote whether or not this Resolution should be adopted, will vote for it. I 
say to you, Mr. Chairman, and members of this Committee, the Zionist 
organization is very powerful in this country and they are located in 
every State in the Union. I don't know of any reason why they can't 
carry some such policy as raised by this Resolution to the voters of the 
individual States or at least some of them and thus test the will of the 
people. I am positive that the American people will not want to impose 
on a free people an artificial religious foreign state. . . . 

There was a long period of time — centuries, if you please — when 
there was no controversy concerning Palestine, Most of us in this room 
remember the last days of that happy period when no one was making 

[ 6] 



any claims against the Holy Land contrary to the rights of its indigenous 
population. Something happened which gave birth to this dispute. At a 
time when Great Britain was fighting with its back to the wall, as then 
described by Lloyd George, shrewd Zionist leaders drove a bargain with 
His Majesty's government and in an unfortunate moment for the three 
parties, the Jews, the Arabs and the English, the Balfour Declaration— 
a secret document secretly arrived at, so far as the Arabs were concerned 
— was born and with it began the Palestine controversy. 

The most important element in this whole controversy which has been 
lost sight of is that Palestine has been an integral part of Syria for 
twenty-five centuries. The fact that international chicanery and Zionist- 
British schemes separated it from her motherland does not make it a 
separate country. Syria is determined that the Balfour Declaration and 
Congressional Resolutions based upon it shall not be the final chapter in 
the history of Palestine. The Zionists then began their efforts for a 
national home which has since then developed through their ambitions 
into a Jewish commonwealth. For the following reasons the claims of 
the Zionists cannot be maintained: 

1. At the time Lord Balfour made his declaration, November 2, 191 7, 
Palestine was not a part of the British Empire, nor was it in possession 
of the Jews, whose population of Palestine was only 55,000 as against 
800,000 Arabs, and England had no right to make any promises in re- 
spect thereto. 

2. At the time Balfour made his declaration, Britain had through Sir 
Henry MacMahon already entered into a solemn agreement with King 
Husein in behalf of the Arabs, October 25, 1915, that England would 
recognize and assist in the establishment of an independent Arab state 
including Palestine. The Arabs were then in complete possession of 
Palestine and were about to declare their independence and revolt against 
the Turkish Empire. In consideration of this agreement on the part of 
England the Arabs revolted against Turkey and shed their blood for 
three years with the armies of the Allies against the combined forces of 
the central powers and Turkey. 

3. Lord Balfour's Declaration was made secretly to a private English 
gentleman, Lord Rothschild, and it was more than a year later that the 
Arabs learned of it. One cannot help asking what right has England to 
give somebody else's country to a people who were disunited, unorgan- 
ized and scattered among the nations of the world, without consulting 
the people who are immediately concerned and who have occupied that 
land as its natives from time immemorial and certainly owned it and 
inhabited it for the last thirteen centuries? 

4. In view of the clear binding agreement between England and King 

[ 7 1 






rlusein, the Balfoui Declaration, secretly Issued and Intentionally con- 
cealed from the Arabs, was dishonest, insim-m-, rimbiginuis ami impos- 
sible of en force men i. 

It was dishonest because the Arabs who were the primary party in 
interest were not consulted; it was insincere because it does not purport 
to give the Jews any definite or specific rights, for careful study and 
consideration of the wording of the declaration will show that the estab- 
lishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine is subordinated to and condi- 
tioned upon a statement which reveals conscious guilt on the part of 
England. That statement is found in the second half of the declaration 
as follows: 

"It being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may 
prejudice the civil or religious rights of existing non-Jewish com- 
munities in Palestine." 

How could that [Jewish National Home] be obtained without "preju- 
dicing the civil or religious rights of existing non- Jewish communities 
in Palestine." 

With the Balfour Declaration and the efforts of the Zionists to estab- 
lish their Jewish national home in Palestine in disregard of the Arabs' 
wishes, a revolution was begun. Concerning this revolution the Royal 
Commission reported the following findings of facts ; 

"It is, indeed, one of the most unhappy aspects of the present situation 
— this opening of a breach between the Jewry and the Arab world. We 
believe that in ordinary circumstances the Arabs would be ready enough 
to permit a measure of Jewish immigration under their own conditions 
and control, but the creation of a national home has been neither condi- 
tioned nor controlled by the Arabs of Palestine. It has been established 
directly against their will. . . . The reasons of this breach are : 

"First. The establishment of a national home involved at the outset 
a blank negation of the right implied in the principle of national self- 
government; 

"Second. It soon proved to be not merely an obstacle to the develop- 
ment of national self-government, but apparently the only serious 
obstacle; 

"Third. As the home has grown, the fear has grown with it, that if 
and when self-government is conceded, it may not be national in the 
Arab sense, but government by a Jewish majority." 

The Resolution before your honorable Committee is based on the Bal- 
four Declaration and follows a similar resolution adopted by the Con- 
gress June 30, 1922, which is better known as the Lodge- Fish Resolu- 

[ 8 ] 









tion, except that (he present Kesoluiion goes much further than the 
Lodge-Fish Resolution. . . . 

The Lodge-Fish Resolution does not go any further than thai "the 
United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a 
national home for the Jewish people." 

The present Resolution advocates the establishment of a Jewish com- 
monwealth in Palestine. 

There are countless reasons why this Resolution ought not to pass. I 
shall deal with only a few of these reasons. 

1. All the three documents, the Balfour Declaration, the Lodge-Fish 
Resolution and the present Resolution, are full of inconsistencies, . . . for 
each one of them provides that nothing shall be done to prejudice the 
rights of the people in Palestine. Here the reference is to the people who 
were in Palestine prior to the Balfour Resolution. Then the language of 
these documents goes on to provide for a national home and now a Jew- 
ish commonwealth. How can anyone establish a political state composed 
of people who are recently gathered and more of them to be gathered 
from the four corners of the globe and put them in Palestine and wait 
until such a time as they become the majority before self-government 
can be established? This certainly prejudices the rights of the Arabs in 
Palestine. The next inconsistency is the establishment of a Jewish com- 
monwealth which is a religious state. How can you establish a Jewish 
state after the Jews have become the majority in Palestine and still call it 
a democratic state as against the people who profess different religions? 
Our understanding of democracy is a complete separation of the state 
and the church. 

2. It took Great Britain twenty-two years from November, 1917, to 
the spring of 1939 to discover its grave mistake at the cost of several 
uprisings in Palestine which culminated in the Arabs' war for inde- 
pendence from ig$6 to 1939, resulting in the destruction of thousands 
of Arab homes and the shedding of much Arab, Jewish and English 
blood, and also after endangering the relations of Great Britain with the 
Arab and Moslem world. In 1939, England sought to rectify the wrong 
by issuing the White Paper, after long conferences with representatives 
of the Arabs and Jews and after recommendations of several Royal 
Commissions appointed by his Majesty's government to study the situ- 
ation. Therefore the White Paper is not an appeasement measure. 
Rather, it is a solemn pledge arrived at after exhaustive study and con- 
sultations by the British Government with both the Arabs and the 
Zionists. Now, after all of this, we find the Zionist influence at work in 
these United States to get Congress to adopt this Resolution as if the 
lesson learned by Great Britain after a quarter of a century of struggle 

[ 9] 



and bloodshed has been of no value to the Zionists in the United States 
who would advocate a Jewish commonwealth in Palestine at the expense 
of the Arabs. Great Britain is now seeking to rectify this wrong. Shall 
we go on to aggravate it ? . . . 

3. In order to make the mandate of this Resolution effective, force 
must be used. If Great Britain rejects our good offices does the Congress 
want the United States Government to war upon our friends, the Arabs? 
Will the American people sanction the use of force upon the Arabs so 
that they may give way to the establishment of a Jewish Commonwealth 
in Palestine? If this is not contemplated by this Resolution, is it then our 
purpose simply to give the Jews lip service without any genuine convic- 
tion behind it? Or is it simply a nice expression of a sympathy which 
might be all right to please the Zionists among us, but which will gain 
for us the suspicions and the lack of confidence on the part of the Arabs? 

If you entertain the possibility of subduing and silencing the Arabs 
of Palestine by some magic and because they are not a strong nation, 
what about the fifty million Arabs in the Near and Middle East? What 
about the three hundred million more Mohammedans in Asia and 
Africa? Great Britain has heard from them and saw the justice of their 
cause. 

4. The passage of this Resolution strikes at the foundation and the 
principles for which our men and women are dying on every battlefield 
and on every continent today. Its passage will strike at the confidence 
the United States enjoys throughout the world. It will nullify the At- 
lantic Charter which guarantees self-government and sovereignty for 
all nations. 

Here I want to beg your indulgence to mention statements made to 
this Committee by the House Leaders of both the majority and minority 
parties who appeared before you the other day and pleaded for approval 
of this Resolution, and my purpose in mentioning what these two gentle- 
men had to say to you is not in the spirit of condemning persons whom 
I respect, but for the sole purpose of touching upon the noble motives 
which constrain some of our governmental and civil leaders to support 
the establishment of a Jewish Homeland in Palestine, and to show that 
these noble motives, to say the least, are misplaced, misguided and 
wrongly applied. . . . 

My neighbor from South Boston is reported by the United Press to 
have said "The least the House of Representatives can do is to go on 
record showing it thinks along humane lines," Is it humane to drive the 
Arabs out of their homes and country in order to give them to others who 
by all the legal and moral codes have lost any claim to them for more 
than two thousand years? Is it humane to reduce the Arabs to a minority 

[ 10 ] 



in their land which the Royal Peel Commission described in its report to 
the British Government in July, 1937, as follows: "Palestine or, more 
strictly speaking, Syria, of which Palestine had been a part since the days 
of Nebuchadnezzar (605-562 B.C.) was to the Arabs their country, their 
home, the land in which their people for centuries past had lived and left 
their graves." The speaker before you last week further said "We could 
not close our eyes to the plight of two million homeless Jews in Europe. 
This is a challenge of all kinds of justice particularly Christian justice." 
Oh Lord ! How many iniquities have been committed in Thy name. 

The other gentleman, also from Massachusetts, said he had been in 
sympathy with the attitude of the Resolution for twenty years and be- 
lieved the guarantee of Palestine as a Jewish Homeland offered "solu- 
tion to a world problem." This gentleman, Leader of the Minority, failed 
to take into consideration the sacred rights of the people of Palestine who 
have been its rightful owners and whose soil is made of their blood and 
of the remains of their forebears long before the Jews came into Pales- 
tine. This gentleman has utterly failed to visualize the bloodshed which 
will be necessary in order to oust the Arabs out of their homes. 

5, The passage of this Resolution will strike at the principles for which 
we are fighting this war as declared in the Atlantic Charter because it 
tends to withhold self-government from the Arabs of Palestine until 
such a time as the Jews have become the majority when they and not the 
Arabs will be in control. , . . 

6, It is very important for the molding of the United States' policy 
towards the Near East to take into consideration the fact that Palestine 
is the southern part of Syria and has been part of Syria for twenty-five 
centuries, that Syria and Lebanon inspired, I believe, by the United 
States and Great Britain have just attained their full independence and 
Syria has never relinquished her right to Palestine as its natural south- 
ern part, nor do the people of Palestine wish to be separated from 
Syria, , , . 

7, The passage of this Resolution will be the greatest disservice to 
innocent Jews everywhere. Those who have succeeded in getting into 
Palestine in the last twenty years and who number five hundred thousand 
may, if further immigration is stopped and the establishment of a politi- 
cal Jewish State is given up, live in Palestine in peace and participate in 
its affairs on equal footing with the Arabs. If this Resolution is passed 
and if our government and the government of Great Britain undertake 
to enforce its provisions, you will have endangered not only the interest 
but the very lives of the Jews in Palestine and consequently placed them 
in an unenviable position throughout the world. 



[ 11 ] 



Proposals i>ok Solution or the Jewish Problem 

I wish to say with the most sincere conviction that history cannot 
justly attribute to any distinct element of mankind greater, continuous 
or more lasting contributions to civilization, than those made and being 
made by the Jews. Those of us who are opposing this Resolution do 
condemn and abhor their persecution as repulsive to human conscience 
and we do not attempt to ignore the existence of a Jewish problem or the 
urgency for its just solution. The solution, however, requires frankness 
and courage to face the truth. 

If the Jews are really seeking a refuge and a homeland where they can 
live in peace and develop their distinct abilities, Palestine can never be- 
come that refuge and it can never solve their problem, certainly not 
through political Zionism. Palestine, however, will welcome the estab- 
lishment within its gates of spiritual and cultural Zionism which will 
revive for the benefit of the entire world the idealism which marked the 
ancient Hebrews and Jews as a distinct people. This can be accomplished 
by a restricted and moderate immigration into Palestine of the type of 
Jewish people who desire to revive for themselves and the world a spirit- 
ual and cultural Zionism in the same manner as that of the American 
missionaries and educational groups who have gone to work in the Near 
East and in other parts of the world. 

It is not for me and it is doubtful whether it is for anybody else but the 
Jews themselves to determine their future course. I will, however, say 
that if the great and able leaders of thought among the Jews insist that 
they should have a political state, then it would seem to be the sacred duty 
and the happy privilege of the United States and Great Britain to ofTer 
out of their vast, and practically vacant territories, a suitable place for 
the establishment of a Jewish state, where they can enjoy self-govern- 
ment without losing the sentimental and religious values which they 
entertain for Palestine, and let Palestine be their missionary home. . . . 

Insofar as the present Jewish population in Palestine is concerned, the 
Arabs intend, provided immigration is stopped and a proportional rep- 
resentative government is created, to afford them protection with all the 
privileges of the land which are enjoyed by the Arabs themselves, and to 
guaranty their minority rights by constitutional provisions and proper 
international obligations. This the Arabs will consider their sacred obli- 
gation for a world trust. 

Finally, as the Jewish problem calls for a just solution, it ill behooves 
the Jews who are rightly clamoring for their minority rights, and who 
are protesting against Hitler's methods, to disregard the rights of the 
great majority in Palestine, and to urge and advocate a policy which 
requires the use of force against the Arabs. 

[ 12 ] 



III 



TESTIMONY OF K. S. TWITCHELL 

Consulting Engineer, Saudi Arabia Mining 

Syndicate, and Former Chief of United States 

Agricultural Mission to Saudi Arabia 

BEFORE 

The Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives 

on 
Resolutions Relative to the Jewish National Home in Palestine 

February 16, 1944 



Mr. Chairman^ Ladies and Gentlemen: 

I am simply a free-born American citizen and I represent nobody but 
myself. 

I have been in that part of the world [Middle East] a great deal, and 
my last trip was last year, I returned last year. It was a trip to Saudi 
Arabia. That is not part of Palestine, but it is part of that section. I 
visited Palestine for a short period last year. 

In the hope that my experience in Yemen and Saudi Arabia and so 
forth, may be of benefit in considering the matter of Palestine, I have 
come here. Everyone agrees upon two aspects : 

(1) That it is a most complex matter. 

(2) That Americans have the greatest sympathy for the persecuted 
Jewish and other minorities. 

As I have spent a number of years in the Near East, 1915-1919 and 
1926 to date, it is possible that I realize the dangers and ramifications 
better than many people, We desire to help solve this question in a way 
that will not involve bloodshed and injustice. First I want to point out 
the dangerous possibilities, as I see them and I may be wrong; and sec- 
ondly I wish to make suggestions for your consideration. 

At the outset I wish to emphasize that it is not only the 1,000,000 or 
less Arabs which are concerned in Palestine, but that 300,000,000 Mos- 
lems throughout the Near East and India are vitally interested in this 
matter. 

[ 13 ] 



Supposing the recommendation I have seen advertised in one of the 
greal newspapers were adopted for the removal of Arabs from Palestine 
to Iraq? Who would finance such a removal and the development of new 
farms and homes? Would not the average American taxpayer resent any 
such thought and consequently become perhaps anti-Semitic? I am afraid 
there would be the following results : 

First: Recent history indicates there would be a great deal of resist- 
ance and bloodshed in Palestine itself as it is well known that both Arabs 
and Jews have considerable amounts of arms. 

Second : The Moslems in Yemen, Arabia, might annihilate the 40,000 
Jews now there. I wonder if they might not be viewed as hostages and in 
a similar manner the 100,000 Jews now in Iraq and who have lived there 
peacefully for over 1,300 years. 

Third ; In Egypt there might be great riots and anti-non-Moslem 
reactions which could result in the greatly handicapping of the large non- 
Moslem interest in education, tbe American University, and so forth, 
and in business. 

Fourth ; In Turkey the non-Moslems might be treated in a manner 
similar to the Arabs from Palestine and be deported — in this case Jews 
(70,000) and Christian Armenians would, perhaps, suffer most. 

Fifth : In India the 90,000,000 Moslems who have upheld the British 
Government when the Hindu Indian Congress was making passive re- 
sistance, would very probably voice great opposition to a removal of 
Arab Moslems and might cause great disturbance and trouble which 
would interfere with our war against Japan in that sphere. 

Sixth: There are many Moslems in Java, China, and the Philippines 
to whom this matter would undoubtedly be broadcast by the Japs and 
Germans so might cause a great antagonism toward the Allies as these 
people might fear similar removals after this war. 

Seventh: Along the African routes of our air transport, most of the 
countries traversed are Moslem inhabited; could not there be many acts 
of sabotage by angry Moslems all along both the North African and 
central African routes? 

Eighth : If the proposed pipe line for bringing American-controlled oil 
from the Persian Gulf eventuates, an unfriendly Arab people along this 
line would be a constant menace and might involve American troops. 

Do you believe the American public would wish their sons to be sent 
to the many points in Moslem countries on police duty and possibly lose 
their lives in a matter entirely aside from our fight for the four free- 
doms? Might this not cause anti-Semitic feeling? Troubles in Boston 
suggest this possibility. 

The British Government can tell you what it has cost in lives and 

E H ] 



money l<> keep their 1 'ales! i tie Mandate. Does I lie American Government 
wish to assume such liabilities? 

Would it not be wise to leave such a many sided question to be worked 
out cooperatively with the British after victory is won? 

Now for the other side. The United States Department of Agricul- 
ture can confirm, or not, my statement that Palestine has now been 
developed to nearly its maximum productivity under present conditions. 
The Palestine Government Partition Report to the British Government, 
1938, Command 5854, tends to confirm this statement. Only if the irri- 
gation project to bring water from Syria to Palestine eventuates, can any 
very considerable additional acreage be cultivated. But in Palestine there 
are great areas, which are steep limestone mountains with very thin soil 
and able only to support grazing — and not very much of that during the 
hottest parts of the summer seasons. My first trip from Jerusalem to 
Jericho was in July, 1929, The progress made to date in agriculture is a 
very great achievement and a credit to the energy of the present popula- 
tion and Jewish financing. 

To add greatly to the present population would not seem to be sound 
economy and would not attain the aims of those of Jewish faith for the 
above reasons. 

There are four places which I suggest be seriously investigated for the 
benefit of those who wish new homes. Other locations like the Dominican 
Republic, and Benguela in Angola, Portuguese West Africa have already 
been suggested and considered, I believe. [Then Mr. Twitchell sug- 
gested Cyrenaica, North Africa; Go jam, Abyssinia; the Province of 
Miuas Geraes, Brazil; and British Guiana,] 

I am very much afraid that the Jewish interests in America as well as 
in the Near East will suffer if the proposed Resolution is passed, espe- 
cially during this present time of stress when we should be cooperating 
to the fullest with our allies and not raising controversial questions and 
resolutions. 



[ 15 1 



IV 

PALESTINIAN ARABS DESCENDED FROM 

NATIVES BEFORE ABRAHAM 

BY PROFESSOR PHILIP K. HITTI 

An Article Appearing in the Princeton Herald, April 21, 1944 

in Answer to 

Criticisms Directed at His Testimony before the 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

by Dr. Albert Einstein and Dr. Eric Kahler 



Dr. Einstein and Dr. Kaiiler introduce their criticism of my testi- 
mony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs by describing it 
as "one-sided." After several days of favorable Zionist testimony, I was 
called upon, in accordance with long-standing democratic practice, to 
present the other side. And my testimony was followed by that of many 
other Zionists and proved to be, with one exception, the only one which 
presented the other side. 

The first issue that the two distinguished writers take with me is a 
historical one. They maintain that "the Arabs have no priority over the 
land," because "both Jews and Arabs are said to stem from a common 
ancestor, from Abraham who immigrated into Canaan, i.e. Palestine." 
But when Abraham- — assuming his historicity — migrated into Canaan 
he did not find it empty, as even a superficial acquaintance with the Old 
Testament literature would indicate. The so-called Arabs of Palestine, 
particularly the Christians among them, are the modern representatives 
of that ancient native stock. The Hebrews came and went. The natives 
remained. The Hebrew Kingdom of Israel was destroyed in 722 b.c. by 
the Assyrian Sargon II; that of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C. 
First the ten then the two tribes were carried away into captivity. All 
flickers of national life were extinguished by later rulers and the hold of 
the Jews over Palestine was gone forever. 

The two authors then proceeded to dispute another historical point. 
They claim that the Moslem "Arabs contributed their share to depriving 
the Jews of their homeland and so to the making of the Jewish problem," 
The two critics evidently are not aware of the fact that the Moslems con- 

[ 16 ] 



quered Palestine in the seventh century after Christ (Palestine was then 
Christian, not Jewish) from the Byzantines, who were the heirs of the 
Romans, who had wrested it from the Seleucids, who were successors 
of Alexander the Great, who had acquired it from the Persians, who had 
destroyed the Chaldaean Empire in 538 b.c, which had controlled Pales- 
tine since Nebuchadnezzar's conquest. A casual acquaintance with my 
History of the Arabs, which the two gentlemen quote in another connec- 
tion, would have spared them this error. But obviously Dr. Einstein's 
acquaintance with the antecedents and setting of the Arab-Zionist prob- 
lem does not far surpass my acquaintance with his theory of relativity. 

Using my testimony as a springboard, the two scholars ignore the 
arguments presented against political Zionism from the British, the 
American and Jewish points of view and proceed to present the orthodox 
Zionist doctrine, claiming at the same time that they "do not speak in the 
name of the Zionist movement." The arguments they give are a rehash 
of the Zionist arguments repeated over years, and intensified in recent 
months from the radio, platform, newspapers, books and propaganda 
sheets. None of the arguments hold water when subjected to close 
scrutiny. 

The first may be termed the argument of the "have not's" against the 
"have's." "The Arabs possess four major countries," we are told; "this 
tiny Palestinian country, on the other hand, is the only place in the world 
legitimately and most deeply connected with the Jewish people." Does not 
this strike a familiar note to the readers of apologies for modern aggres- 
sion? Immigration and colonization, be it remembered, are a form of 
attenuated invasion. In the case of political Zionism, they are a professed 
though peaceful invasion implied in the Resolution before the Congres- 
sional Committees in Washington : 

"That the United States shall use its good offices and take appro- 
priate measures to the end that the doors of Palestine shall be 
opened for free entry into that country and that there shall be full 
opportunity for colonization so that the Jewish people may ulti- 
mately reconstitute Palestine as a free and democratic Jewish com- 
monwealth." 

In one of the official British Commission's reports, the process of 
Jewish penetration is termed by the Arabs a "creeping conquest," and a 
creeping conquest it is. In a recent note of protest to Washington from 
Iraq, the passage of this resolution was declared as tantamount to a 
declaration of war by the United States on the Arabs of Palestine. 

From the above often-repeated argument, Dr. Einstein and his collab- 
orator proceed to another often-repeated argument: the humanitarian 

[ 17 1 



T 



one, emphasizing the plight of European Jews under Hitler's heels and 
the necessity for alleviating their misery. What makes the position of 
those opposing the "reconstituting of Palestine as a Jewish common- 
wealth" (and all organized opposition in the United States comes from 
the Jews themselves) rather embarrassing is that they may seem irre- 
sponsive to the humane call The fact is that in the discussion that fol- 
lowed the testimony in Washington the present writer declared as an 
American citizen that he would welcome legislation admitting Jews and 
non-Jews to these shores. The official attitude of our Government toward 
the refugee problem was expressed by Assistant Secretary Breckinridge 
Long in recent testimony before a Congressional committee where, after 
discussing the recommendations of the Bermuda Conference headed by 
our own President Dodds, Mr. Long made it clear that the Jewish 
refugee problem could not be isolated and that the Government could not 
exclude persons other than Jews from its activities. 

What makes the action of the scores of American senators, represen- 
tatives, governors (Dewey included) and other high officials who in this 
year of election have seen fit to sign the numerous Zionist manifestos 
appear hypocritical is the fact that none of these gentlemen appear willing 
to raise a finger to lift the bars of immigration into the United States. 
Let the British force the Palestinians, who have already witnessed the 
advent of hundreds of thousands of Jews into their midst in the last 
twenty years, to admit more Zionists until they become a majority and 
rule the land. Such in short is their easy solution of one of the world's 
knottiest problems ! 

The third argument, also a familiar one, advanced by Einstein and 
Kahler, is what may be termed the successful cultivation of the soil. 
"They [the Zionists] took over from the period of Arabian predomi- 
nance deserts and rocks and barren soil and turned them into flowering 
farms and plantations, into forests and modern cities." This also has a 
customary ring in the ears of those who listened to — for example — 
Italian apologists in Tripoli ( 1912) and in Ethiopia (1935). But be that 
as it may; anyone with first-hand knowledge of the real economic situa- 
tion can prick this bubble of highly publicized, greatly advertised "Pales- 
tinian prosperity," The plain truth is that the Zionist colonies are still 
living on charity. The difference between their prosperity and the gen- 
uine thing is precisely the difference between a plump healthy cheek with 
red blood corpuscles and a puffed-up one smeared with rouge. The Pales- 
tine Homeland is at present 40% self-supporting according to British 
estimates. The American consul general in Jerusalem reports that 
$5,500,000 are poured annually from the United States alone to support 
it. Let this process of "artificial respiration" cease and it would not be 

[ 18 ] 



difficult to see what would happen. The unbalanced condition of the 
whole country's economy may be evidenced by the fact that from 
1926-27 the imports exceeded the exports by as much as 5-1, and from 
1937-39 Dv 2 ^2 _I - As f° r tne advantages which we have been repeatedly 
told have accrued to the native population, suffice it to quote article 3 
of the constitution of the enlarged Jewish Agency signed at Zurich, 
August 14, 1929: "The land acquired shall be held as the inalienable 
property of the Jewish people" (a provision to this effect is incorporated 
in every lease) , and "in all the works or undertakings carried out or fur- 
thered by this Agency it shall be deemed to be a matter of principle that 
Jewish labor shall be employed" — a perpetual boycott against Arab 
labor. 

The statement of Dr. Einstein and Dr. Kahler ends on a meek note, 
"We do not resort to threats of power, for the Jews have no power/' etc., 
which does not exactly jibe with recent declarations of Zionist spokes- 
men and with the reports about smuggling of arms, manufacture of hand 
grenades and explosion of bombs in the Zionist parts of Palestine. Ziff, 
a Zionist spokesman, would "make the Arabs go back to the desert where 
they came from." Weizmann, the head of Zionism, would "facilitate" 
Arab transference from Palestine. Ben-Horin is more frank. He, as 
announced in his book and full-page advertisements in the New York 
Times, endorsed by scores of prominent and wealthy Americans, would 
solve the problem once for all by transferring the Arab population not 
only of Palestine but of Transjordan also into Iraq to make room for 
Zionists. Militant Zionism is quite a different thing from what my two 
distinguished neighbors seem to take it to be. 

Sober and realistic Jews realize that it is on such stuff as presented by 
militant and political Zionism that anti-Semitism feeds. They recognize 
the unpracticability of the Zionist political program, consider Judaism 
a religion and not a political state and admit that the great contribution 
of Israel throughout the ages has been in the spiritual and intellectual 
rather than the political realm. They have no desire to deprive the Arab 
population of its civil rights, guaranteed in the Balfour Declaration, and 
would like to see a Palestinian state — neither Jewish nor Moslem — in 
which all citizens, regardless of faith or origin become equal and free 
citizens. They know for a fact that when the present war is over many of 
the European Jews would want to return to their old homelands of which 
they were citizens first and Jews second ; unless this war makes it safe 
for European Jews and non-Jews to live in harmony and peace it would 
have been fought in vain. As American Jewish citizens, they must have 
received the latest reports that of the 5,500 American Jews now in Pales- 
tine only 100 have forsaken their American citizenship and the rest are 

[ 19 1 



worried to death lest this war be so prolonged that they would lose their 
opportunity to return to the States at least to renew their passports. The 
sober and realistic Arabs are likewise beginning to realize that many of 
the Jews now in Palestine are there to stay, and that the Arabs* own 
interest and future welfare require that they cooperate with these new- 
comers on an equal basis to the end that a new Palestine shall arise 
worthy of its honored name and noble heritage. 

[Reprinted by the kind permission of the Princeton Herald] 



E 20 ] 



V 

ARAB NATIONALISM AND POLITICAL 

ZIONISM 

BY WILLIAM ERNEST HOCKING 
Alford Professor of Philosophy EmerituSj Harvard University 



The extraordinary pressure with which the question of Palestine is 
being urged on Congress would be disturbing under any circumstances. 
Are we being hurried into action before we see clearly what the issues 
are? In my judgment, the motives for the agitation are not fully realized 
by the public, nor some of the main facts which must govern our 
judgment. 

It is natural that this agitation should put forward as its chief burden 
the humanitarian concern we all feel for the plight of Jewish refugees 
from Europe. The immediate political objective, of inducing the British 
Government to review the policy of its White Paper, is presented as sub- 
sidiary to the problem of refuge. Senator Taft, speaking on March 9 at 
the annual meeting of the American Palestine Commission announced it 
as the primary purpose of his Bill "to find a place of refuge for the four 
million surviving Jews of Europe." In my judgment, Senator Taft and 
the American public as well, ought to weigh very carefully both the 
humanitarian and the political objectives, and consider to what extent 
the proposed means will serve the humanitarian end ; and to what extent 
it will serve other ends. 

On the humanitarian objective: a place or places of refuge for Jews 
driven from Europe must be provided : this is an imperative international 
responsibility. It is easy to run from this axiom to the conclusion that 
Palestine ought to be thrown open at once to immigration, and without 
the terminus proposed in the White Paper. This conclusion would fol- 
low if Palestine were the only place, or the best place, or even a possible 
place for more than a limited number of refugees ; and if there were no 
opposing considerations. None of these things can be taken for granted. 

It is certainly not the only place now open. Nor purely from the stand- 
point of living possibilities is it the best place. And as for the four million 
refugees of Senator Taft's speech, the suggestion that this number can 
find livelihood in Palestine in any near time is fantastic. The "absorp- 

[ 21 ] 



tive capacity of Palestine" has been a matter of heated debate, into 
which there is no need here to enter. Let me mention only what will be 
generally agreed upon. On the agricultural possibilities of that New 
Hampshire-sized country (about 10,000 square miles) about half the 
area is cultivable : of the 6,579,750 acres, estimates of the cultivable area 
vary from 3 million to 4 million acres (W. C, Lowdermilk, Palestine, 
Land of Promise, pp. 222 f.). Since as a matter of course, the best of 
this is already occupied, the question is how much of the remainder can 
be brought to fairly good condition, even with a wholly disproportionate 
investment: a third of this half would seem a fair estimate. No one 
doubts that if the Zionist-held area can be extended, processes of recla- 
mation costly and slow can bring more acres under cultivation. For the 
refugees, however, the issue is not what can be done in twenty years, but 
what can be done soon. The answer has to be, nothing remotely adequate. 

One hope now being urged for large increase in the capacity of Pales- 
tine is in a program of intensive industrialization. Each one must judge 
for himself the lasting value of a forced industrial development of a land 
so little favored by nature ; and whether a Palestine with none but im- 
ported fuel, a rainfall too meager for even its present human uses, and an 
extremely limited water power is an appropriate center for an industry 
based on the resources of the wider Near East, But again, no one will 
doubt that such industrial building must grow pari passu with lines of 
supply and market outlets which cannot be improvised on any consider- 
able scale prior to or apart from a general world settlement. In such a 
settlement, the interests of the Arab lands for developing their own in- 
dustries will require to be heard. In any case, the rate of Palestianian 
development could not be sufficient to meet the early needs of any im- 
portant fraction of Europe's refugee Jews, 

And since the ground upon which Palestine is chiefly claimed as a 
uniquely necessary place for a National Home for the Jewish people is 
not its economic advantage, but its religious association, it may be worth 
while to mention that a Palestine heavily industrialized is a Palestine 
defaced from this point of view for Jew, Moslem and Christian alike. 

Americans easily confuse the meaning of Palestine as a place of refuge 
with its meaning as a cultural or national home for the Jewish people. 
Not only are the two meanings distinct; they are in some measure at 
cross purposes. For the Jews in Palestine who are animated by a burning 
historical piety are not at ease with the more recent influx from Europe 
of Jews whose religion is rather that of a social goal than that of the 
Religious Law or of the Holy Land. If the emphasis is placed on the 
rights of religious association, we have to remember that for the Mos- 
lems also Jerusalem is a sacred city. And the very site of the ancient 

[ 22 ] 



• 



Jewish Temple is now occupied by the Great al-Aksa Mosque (begun 
690 a.d. ) ; and so rooted in Moslem tradition as the scene of a miraculous 
event in the life of Mohammed that any attempt on the part of Zionism 
to return to its ancient spot of worship would — relations between Jews 
and Moslems being what they now are — have to be made by force. 
This is certainly not contemplated by anybody at this time; and the 
inference is that the importance of Palestine as a place of Jewish settle- 
ment cannot be based either on the needs of refugees or on the grounds 
of pious necessity, but rather precisely where the Balfour Declaration 
has put it, on the desirability of a national home for the Jewish people. 
What that declaration means is so much misunderstood, and unfortu- 
nately also so much misrepresented, that it must again be restated. 

The Balfour Declaration, issued November 2, 1917, used these words : 
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment 
in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish People, and will use 
their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it 
being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may 
prejudice the civil and religious rights of non-Jewish communities 
in Palestine. . . ." 
What this Declaration did not promise was the re constitution of Pal- 
estine as the National Home of the Jews. 

This latter formula, which is now being urged by certain pressure 
groups as the substance of the Declaration was in fact asked for by the 
British Zionists in 1917, and expressly rejected by the British Govern- 
ment, This rejection has been renewed at various subsequent times, as 
in the White Paper of June, 1922. There is a world of difference be- 
tween a Home within Palestine, and reconstituting Palestine (making 
the whole place over) as the Home, or as a Jewish community. 

It was precisely this "within" feature which made it possible for Zion- 
ists at Paris to win the apparent acceptance of the idea by the Arab 
Delegation there headed by Emir Feisal. The circumstances of the inter- 
change between Mr. Frankfurter and Emir Feisal have been discussed 
at length since that time. One thing that has become clear, in my opinion, 
is that Feisal at that time had hopes of an Arab Kingdom— hopes abet- 
ted by Great Britain — with himself as ruler of Syria in Damascus; and 
for the Arabs, Syria traditionally includes Palestine.* Thus Faisal's 

* The articles of agreement which Feisal signed with Dr. Chaim Weizmann carried 
the following rider : 

"Provided the Arabs obtain their independence as demanded in my Memorandum 
dated the 4th of January, 1019, to the Foreign Office of the Government of Great 
Britain, I shall concur in the above articles. But if the slightest modification or 
departure were to be made, I shall not then be bound by a single word of the present 



[ 23 ] 



approval of a Zionist community in Palestine was dependent on its en- 
closure within a dominant Arab state. It must also be said that Feisal's 
signature to the famous and much questioned letter has never carried 
weight with the Arab world. Any representation that the Arab people of 
Palestine or elsewhere, either then or at any subsequent time, agreed to 
the reconstitution of Palestine as a Jewish community is false. 

When therefore one of the groups now pressing for the abrogation of 
the White Paper announces that the Jews of Palestine "did not come to 
form a new minority," they are in effect not appealing for the enforce- 
ment of the Balfour Declaration but for its replacement. Why do they 
wish to become a majority unless it is in order that (as the Shaw Report 
of 1930 put it) "under a democratic rule the Jewish view should always 
prevail" ? 

At present they are not too far from that goal as an effective working 
proposition. In 191 9 (to use the figures of the Palestine Partition Com- 
mission of 1938) there were in Palestine 58,000 Jews and 642,000 
Arabs (Moslem and Christian). Jews were then roughly 10% of the 
total In 1937, there were about 402,000 Jews and 990,000 Arabs. Today 
we may estimate about 600,000 Jews and 1,000,000 Arabs. Allow some 
weight to the concentration of Jews in towns (only about 23% are on 
the soil) and their superior skill and practice in political action, and it 
would seem that a Jewish-controlled Palestine is within reach. It is this 
which the Arabs fear. 

Putting these various items together, does it not appear that the ani- 
mus of the present drive is not primarily humanitarian but political? 



But why not? Why should not Palestine be made over into a new 
Jewish community? The case is not to be judged solely by existing doc- 
uments and the rights thereby created. It has to be judged de novo, in the 
light of present world conditions. 

The cultural progress of the Zionist colonies in Palestine has been 
remarkable in many ways. The great Hebrew University on Mount 
Scopus and its library are monuments to the breadth and wisdom of its 
founders and builders. The large influx of Jewish capital into Palestine 
has furnished a basis for taxation (levied on the Arabs as well) which 
the British Government has used in part for public improvements — 
roads, public health, etc, — in which the Arabs have a natural share. At 
the same time, the Arab feels his total economic position less secure than 



Agreement, which shall be deemed void and of no account or validity, and I shall 
not be answerable in any way whatsoever." 
George Antonius. The Arab Awakening, Supplement. 

[ 24 ] 



before. Why this is the case, a single item relating to farm labor, will 
sufficiently illustrate : 

It is especially the position of the Arab agricultural laborer that has 
to be considered, for most Arabs (and this is part of the traditional 
charm of the land) have gained their livelihood from the soil What 
has been happening to him may best appear by quoting from a lease of 
the Jewish National Fund as to Jewish settlers on Palestinian land : 

"The lessee undertakes to execute all works connected with the 
cultivation of the holding only with Jewish labour. Failure to com- 
ply with this duty by the employment of non-Jewish labour shall 
render the lessee liable to the payment of a compensation of ten 
Palestinian pounds for each default. . . . Where the lessee has con- 
travened the provisions of this Article three times the Fund may 
apply the right of restitution of the holding, without paying any 
compensation whatever/'* 
The Jewish Agency provides in its Constitution that 

"Land is to be acquired as Jewish property . . . title to be taken 
in the name of the Jewish National Fund, to the end that the same 
shall be held as the inalienable property of the Jewish people/ 5 * 
On this arrangement, land bought by the Jewish Agency, let us say from 
an Arab landlord employing Arab labor, ceases automatically to be a 
place of possible residence or work to those laborers. As Sir John Simp- 
son put the matter in his Report : 

"It ceases to be land from which the Arab can gain any advan- 
tage either now or at any other time in the future. ... He is de- 
prived forever from employment on that land. . . . Nor can anyone 
help him by purchasing the land and restoring it to common use. 
The land is in mortmain and inalienable/'* 
There have been good reasons, from the standpoint of providing occupa- 
tion for more Jewish immigrants, for such policies as these; but it is at 
least understandable that despite improvements in other ways, despite 
the fact that every step of the advance of Zionist ownership is legitimate, 
and paid for at high prices, the Arab masses as a whole have felt their 
relative position deteriorating. It is not a question of the number of per- 
sons dispossessed, and undisposed to accept compensation. It is a question 
of the attitude of the slowly advancing power. Its strength, intelligence, 
cash backing, splendid equipment, render it in Arab eyes the more for- 
midable because of this attitude. Hence they have come to face the future 
with concern. 

* All quotations from Simpson Report, Cmd. 3686, 1930. 

[ 25 ] 



r 



i 



But why not override these feelings, which after all affect only a rela- 
tively few people on a very small piece of land? Why cannot the Arabs 
give up an insignificant fraction of their "immense domain," and even 
accept the idea of an exchange of population with, let us say, Iraq, if it 
will make for the realization of the Jewish dream? This proposal is now 
being vigorously urged in some quarters and many Americans are im- 
pressed by its apparent reasonableness. 

Those who are promoting this view do not explain what they propose 
to do with the extensive religious establishments of Islam in Palestine, 
including the great mosques and various schools. These establishments 
are not, like those of the Christians, primarily of a memorial nature : they 
are important educational and devotional centers for a living religion, 
within the region of its central activity. To maintain such establishments 
a considerable local population is required and assumed : to deport the 
million Arabs to Iraq would be another way of strangling these institu- 
tions. They require also a flow of worshippers and pilgrims, both phys- 
ically and morally free to come and go. The entire Moslem world is 
concerned in this. If we think the matter unimportant, they do not. 

As for the ''immense domain" of the Arab peoples, that is largely 
desert. The cultivable portions are chiefly strewn around the rim, whose 
northern arch is known as the Fertile Crescent. The value of Palestine 
to either Arab or Zionist does not derive from its size but from its sit- 
uation, and the functions which that situation enables it to carry out. 

The material and present-day advantages of Palestine come largely 
from its position on the Mediterranean coast. Commercially it belongs 
to the European Area. Palestine stands in an important strategic position 
between Europe and the budding industrial development, not so much of 
Palestine itself as of the lands behind Palestine, Arab lands which are 
entering on a new economic era. One Zionist proponent estimates the 
immediate background which Palestine might serve as 40 million in 
number, with a remoter region of 400 million people. All this region will 
need is outside financing ; whose finance is it to be ? And what control will 
go with the financing? If the future economic importance of Palestine is 
to be, as I surmise, commercial rather than agricultural or industrial, its 
prosperity will depend to a large extent on its relations to this growingly 
important hinterland. And vice versa, the prosperity of that hinterland 
might depend to a considerable extent on its relations with the financial 
powers, the warehouses, and the commercial lanes centering in Palestine 
and vicinity. 

The significance of these facts is not obscure to the Zionist It is also 
not obscure to the Arab, desirous of being master of his own industrial 
future ; desirous therefore of keeping his direct front on the Mediter- 

[ 26 ] 




ranean, and access on equal terms to the facilities of Palestinian harbors, 
roads and air stations. Cultural relations with Europe will also be im- 
portant for the new life of the Arabian provinces. Surrender of Palestine 
to exclusive Zionist control would thus amount to acceptance of a barrier 
between them and Europe at the outset of their newer national career. 

And when Zionists' plans are extended, as they are by some, to bring 
Transjordan into the Jewish commonwealth, it must not be forgotten 
that the Zionist land-bloc would then cut clear through the thin Fertile 
Crescent to the desert. It would He directly across the north-and-south 
lines of land travel and pilgrimage, including the railroad built chiefly 
for the convenience of pilgrims between the northern Moslem lands and 
Mecca. This would revive, within Arabian territory, that nightmare of 
European politics, the Corridor. To ask for Palestine and Transjordan 
as a minute percentage of the total Arab territory is thus like asking for 
a microscopic section across one 5 s wrist. 

The disconcerting thing about these proposals, to which the United 
States is asked to become a party, is not so much the rivalry of interests, 
which is a usual thing in the world, as the silence of Zionist spokesmen 
about the existence of any such Arab interests. They do not mention the 
Arab political aspirations, which like their own, have the sanction and 
documentary support of Great Britain. They tend to blackwash the cul- 
tural achievements and interests of the Arab peoples, whom they prefer 
to represent as typified by the Bedouin rather than by members of the 
Arab Academy at Damascus or the scholars of Beirut, and whom they 
describe even in literature now being circulated among us as "nomadic," 
"backward/' "half-civilized." Do they not know the new Arab university 
life, the new literature, the new history, the new economic prowess? Do 
they forget that it was the Arabs who for six hundred years preserved 
the classical culture of Greece for a dark Europe ? 

And do they not know that just as they themselves are making begin- 
nings in Palestine, so the Arab peoples in far greater numbers are mak- 
ing their new beginnings, after four centuries of oppression by the old 
Turkish regime? Mr. Lowdermilk, who will not be accused of over- 
enthusiasm for the Arab future, testifies to the rapid progress of an 
unsubsidized Arab agriculture (Palestine, Land of Promise, pp. 158 f.) 
and industry, about 2,000 industrial plants having been started by them 
in recent years (op. cit,, p. 109) in Palestine alone. The young Arab 
world of today is living, as human beings should live, largely in the 
future. Its nationalism has to win its own steadiness, self-control, and 
world-responsibility; but Its substance is a justified faith in what is to 
be, rather than fixing its eyes on what is. 

If the Zionists do not know of these things, it is high time they learned 

[ V ] 



of them. And if they do know of them, why do they so constantly speak 
and act as if they were not true? This failure on their part to appreciate 
what it is that they would push aside gives, I think, the clue to the 
emotional aspect of the Palestinian problem. 

For given this temper of disparagement, can anyone explain to the 
American public why the Arabs should welcome the prospect of becom- 
ing dependent for their own progress in any degree on Zionist under- 
standing and good-will ? 

It is not the bad effendls — who serve the Zionist spokesmen as the 
sufficient explanation of all opposition to their plans — it is not the land- 
owners and the moneyed muftis alone, it is the entire Arab population 
of Palestine and the neighboring territories that cannot accommodate its 
mind to that prospect. 

And we are asked to make a national commitment to the cause of 
political Zionism — I fear with our eyes half shut — a commitment whose 
consequences would be not alone an added tension in a situation already 
strained by the demands of war, but a revulsion against everything 
Anglo-American on the part of the Moslem world, already half inclined 
to seek the guarantors of its destiny elsewhere. 

I speak with all consideration when I say that I believe the political 
Zionists at this moment as distinct from the cultural Zionists who have 
built the noble Hebrew University and who know what a National Home 
must be — I believe the political Zionists to be the chief enemies of the 
cause of Zionism as well as of the Jewish interests in the world of tomor- 
row. What can they hope to gain by extricating their brethren from the 
prejudices of Europe only to build a community in Palestine which has 
to be protected by Western force (and if we intervene, then by American 
force also) because it is cradled in an environment of distrust and fear 
cultivated by their own methods of realizing a misplaced nationalistic 
ambition? 

[Reprinted by the kind permission of League of American-Arab Com- 
mittees for Democracy, 1907 Detroit Street, Flint, Mich.] 



[ 28 ] 



VI 



THE VOICE OF THE ARABS 

BY JABIR SHIBLI 
Professor of Mathematics, Pennsylvania State College 



The Palestine problem is the creation of political Zionism and British 
imperialism. The Balfour Declaration is the child of this unholy alliance. 
The promise of the Arabs of Palestine as a national home for the Jews is 
the betrayal of a people who had been promised independence and en- 
couraged to revolt against the Turks and aid the Allies, and who had 
raised an army of seventy thousand Arabs which formed the right wing 
of the Allied forces that conquered Palestine and Syria. The Arabs have 
not accepted and never will accept the Balfour Declaration or the man- 
date status, Britain had no right to give away a property not her own, 
nor had the Zionists a better right to accept an illegitimate gift that 
could not be delivered. 

Political and secular Zionism has been one of the forces of darkness 
in the world, destructive of Jewry and Araby alike. When Zionist lead- 
ers took it upon themselves to commit their movement to the conquest 
of Palestine by aid of the sword, and entered the arena of international 
intrigue by making a political alliance with Britain, they betrayed the 
Jewish people. 

Since political Zionism made the Jews of all the world virtual or poten- 
tial citizens of a Jewish state to be established in Palestine by ousting 
another nation already in possession, the Jews in other countries have 
been accused of seeking two citizenships and cherishing two allegiances. 
The deplorable increase of anti-Semitism all over the world, including 
Britain and America, is a vague response of the world's feeling to the 
attitude of political Zionism. For the human spirit detests aggression 
whether practiced by Hitler in Europe, by Japan in China, or by Zionism 
in Palestine. 

Political Zionism has not only stirred up old hatreds but has also 
made new enemies for the Jews. The Arabs have no race prejudice or 
inherent dislike for the Jews, and Arab history is remarkably free from 
any deliberate persecution of the Jewish people. When medieval Chris- 
tendom persecuted the Jews, the Arabs gave them refuge and kind hos- 

[ 29 ] 



pitality. Before World War I there was no safer place for the Jews than 
in Arab countries. Zionism is transforming the Arabs from old friends 
into bitter enemies. 

For twenty-live years political Zionism has been a force making for 
the exploitation of Palestine and the disintegration of the life of its 
Arab inhabitants. It has poured into tiny Palestine half a million Jews 
who entered the country not as refugees seeking a home but as con- 
querors. It has acquired, with the backing of British military force and 
a large share of the wealth of the world, the most fertile areas of Pales- 
tine and made them the inalienable property of the Jewish people. It has 
dislodged thousands of Arab families from lands which they had cul- 
tivated for generations and sucked them into the cities where they work 
long hours for bad wages and live in miserable huts built of flattened tin 
cans. It has organized a closed and exclusive community in which no 
Arab may be employed, but where only Jews will produce and only Jews 
will profit. It has misrepresented to a scandalous degree Arab life and 
character, calling the Arabs an "uncivilized race," "bedouins" and "red 
Indians." And it has created a perpetual menace not only to Palestine 
but also to Syria, Iraq and Trans Jordan and the whole Arab world. 

In the face of this black record and these stubborn facts that cannot 
be honestly denied, it is an added insult to tell the Arabs that the Zionist 
enterprise is a benefit to them. Whatever progress may have been made 
by the Arabs of Palestine has been made not because of Zionism but in 
spite of Zionism. The Zionists have done absolutely nothing to create 
confidence in Zionist honor and intentions. To the Arab mind economic 
benefits, if any, are overshadowed by the moral and vital issues that 
cannot be compromised. The Arabs would rather be starving and free 
than be fed as hewers of wood for alien masters. 

Conscious of their great background and inspired by a new national 
awakening, quick with the promise of a more brilliant future, the Arabs 
are immovably united in defense of their sacred heritage. It is a delusion 
and misrepresentation of reality to think that the Arab revolt is due to 
the intrigues of the effendi class, the personal ambitions of the Grand 
Mufti, or the agents of Germany and Italy. It is the revolt of a proud 
and highly gifted people whose land has been invaded by military force 
but whose affection for their country is so passionate that they would 
rather die fighting in its defense than go elsewhere and live. Justice and 
the future are on their side. Should the million Arabs of Palestine be 
overwhelmed by foreign powers, the coming Arab union, which will 
have fifty million people before the end of the present century, will 
take up the cause and redeem the heart and center of the Arab world 
from alien invaders. The worst blunder of Zionism is that it underrated 
the strength of the Arabs and their unconquerable spirit. 

[ 30 1 



Although Britain has served Zionism against the rights and welfare 
of the Arabs, twenty-five years of the Zionist experiment and the un- 
compromising opposition of the Arabs to Jewish domination have made 
it clear that a national home based on territorial sovereignty cannot be 
accomplished without constant use of military force. It was this realism 
that forced Britain to decide against the establishment of a Jewish state 
and against any further Jewish immigration into Palestine without the 
consent of the Arabs. When the Zionists found that their extreme de- 
mands were reduced to a limited Zionism, they accused Britain of "bad 
faith" and turned to America for support. They would have America 
involved in the hatreds and disputes generated by Zionism. But neither 
America nor the United Nations have any more right to give Palestine 
to the Zionists than the Arabs have to give New York to the Jews or 
Massachusetts to the Irish. 

More recently another group has been created; namely, the "Christian 
Council on Palestine." When men speak in the name of a "Christian" 
body, the world has a right to expect words of justice, love and recon- 
ciliation. Instead, spokesmen of the Christian Council seem to be calling 
for a Protestant crusade in behalf of Zionism (not to lift up the banner 
of the Cross on the hill of Calvary, but to raise the star of David over 
the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Dome of the Rock). Perhaps 
these Christian gentlemen are not aware that there are 130,000 Christian 
Arabs in Palestine and two million Christian Arabs in the Near East 
who are wholeheartedly united with the Moslem Arabs in the defense 
of their country. The Christian Arabs are the children of the early 
Church, and they have a right to expect at least sympathy from the 
Christian brotherhood in America. Try to imagine how it would feel 
to a Christian Arab, or to a Moslem Arab, to learn that Christian 
clergymen and politicians are offering his country to others. How can 
our missionaries proclaim the gospel of love among the Arabs while 
the honorable members of the Christian Council conspire with the Jews 
to rob those same Arabs of their freedom and their native land? It is the 
height of impertinence, if not hypocrisy, to say that while Palestine is to 
be converted into a Jewish state, "the rights of the Arabs must be fully 
considered/' To fight anti-Semitism is the duty of every civilized human 
being, but that duty could never be fulfilled by dispossessing or sub- 
merging the Arabs. 

If "the Jewish problem is a Christian problem," honesty demands 
that Christians should solve it with what is their own, not with what 
belongs to the Arabs. It would be more becoming if spokesmen of the 
Christian Council would use their eloquence to arouse the conscience of 
Christian nations to give the hapless Jews asylum in the vast domains 
of America, Canada, Brazil, South Africa, Australia and the boundless 

[ 31 ] 



pendent nations can be provisionally recognized, subject to the 
rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory, 
until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these 
communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of a 
Mandatory. 

This provision of the League Covenant is on the lines of the twelfth of 
President Wilson's Fourteen Points. It stated: 

. . . the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should 
be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely un- 
molested opportunity of autonomous development. 

The independence of Arab Palestine, in which the Arabs numbered 
nearly 90% of the population at the outbreak of the First World War, 
might seem to be sufficiently secured by the Mandatory provisions of 
the League Covenant. It had, however, still further security in the eyes 
of the Arabs, owing to the promises contained in the McMahon letters, 
which have formed the subject of much contentious debate. That corre- 
spondence was carried on in the autumn and winter of 191 5-16 between 
Sir Henry McMahon, then High Commissioner for Egypt, on behalf 
of the British Government, and the King of the Hejaz, Sharif of 
Mecca. At that time the military outlook in the Near East was bad, and 
the British Government wished to have the help of the Arabs against the 
Turkish forces. Sir Henry McMahon, therefore, promised King Hus- 
sein the independence of those areas of the Turkish Empire populated 
by Arabs, with certain exceptions, in return for armed assistance by the 
Arabs. Palestine was not mentioned by name in the correspondence. 
The British Government maintains that it was included in the excepted 
area, the Arabs that it was not, that certain areas were excepted on the 
ground that in them France had an interest. She had no special interest 
in Palestine, but was deeply concerned about northern Syria. Nor was 
there any other obvious reason for the exception of Palestine from the 
agreement, as the Balfour Declaration was made nearly two years after 
the McMahon correspondence had closed. It is clear that in this impor- 
tant correspondence phrases were used which led to serious misunder- 
standing, and it may well be doubted whether the Arabs would have 
taken part in the revolt in the desert, had they realized that the British 
Government had excepted Palestine from the area in which they were 
promised eventual independence. 

The wording of the McMahon correspondence was unfortunate. Not 
less remarkable was the wording of the Balfour Declaration. This docu- 
ment was issued in the form of a letter dated November 2, 1917, 

[ 34] 



addressed to Lord Rothschild and signed by Mr. A. J. Balfour, at the 
time Foreign Secretary. It runs : 

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His 
Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with 
Jewish Zionist aspirations, which has been submitted to and ap- 
proved by the Cabinet. 

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment 
in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will 
use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this 
object, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done 
which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non- 
Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status 
enjoyed by Jews in any other country." 

I should be grateful if you would bring this Declaration to the 
knowledge of the Zionist Federation. 

It is noticeable that the letter contains no description of the "Jewish 
Zionist aspirations" with which His Majesty's Government was in sym- 
pathy, nor any definition of the term "a national home for the Jewish 
people." No reference was made to political rights in the clause safe- 
guarding other rights of the existing population, and the description of 
the Arabs, at that time constituting some 90% of the total population 
of Palestine, as an "existing non-Jewish community in Palestine" was 
contemptuous and insulting. The last sentence of the latter was humor- 
ously superfluous, unless used as a smoke-screen, as it subsequently 
became known that the Zionists themselves took the major share 
in drafting the document. The Balfour Declaration must indeed be 
unique as a State paper, in the obscurity of its phrasing, its gratuitous 
insulting reference to a people who at the time were the allies of Great 
Britain, and its careful concealment of the ultimate object to which His 
Majesty's Government at the time hoped to attain. 

The Mandatories for the ex-Turkish Arab dominions were nomi- 
nated at the San Remo Conference in April, 1920, Iraq and Palestine 
falling to Great Britain, without any reference to the inhabitants as 
was required by Clause 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant. But peace 
with Turkey had not been concluded, and Palestine was actually in 
military occupation, which normally should have continued till the rati- 
fication of the Peace Treaty. Nor could the Mandate be conferred by 
the League till peace had been concluded, that is, until the Treaty of 
Lausanne, signed in July, 1923, had been ratified by the governments 
concerned. The British Government did not await the normal procedure, 
but on July i, 1920, replaced the military government of Palestine by a 

[ 35 ] 






civil administration under Sir Herbert (now Viscount) Samuel as 
High Commissioner. Steps were at once taken to implement the prom- 
ises contained in the Balfour Declaration and the immigration of Jews 
was encouraged, the first Immigration Ordinance being enacted in 
September, 1920, and the first year's quota of immigrants being fixed 
at 12,500. 

This action caused considerable alarm among the Arab population, 
and on Mayday, 1921, a clash occurred between Arabs and Jews in Tel 
Aviv and Jaffa. The trouble was quickly suppressed. A Commission 
of Enquiry reported that the cause of the disorders was Arab hostility 
connected with Jewish immigration and with their conception of Zionist 
policy as derived from Jewish exponents. This was the first of many 
disturbances, first directed against Jewish immigrants, later against 
both Jews and the Mandatory authority, and finally, from 1936 until 
the outbreak of the Second World War, taking the form of widespread 
rebellion against the Mandatory government of Palestine. 

The Mandate came into force on September 29, 1923, and the posi- 
tion of the Mandatory government was thus regularized. The terms of 
the Mandate deserve attention. It is a document of 28 articles, but of 
them only a few are of special importance in considering the establish- 
ment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. The Preamble embodies 
the salient part of the Balfour Declaration and the statement 

whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical con- 
nection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds 
for reconstituting their national home in that country. 

Article I gave to the Mandatory full powers of legislation and adminis- 
tration. Article 2 rendered the Mandatory responsible for conditions 
which would secure the establishment of the Jewish national home 

and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the 
inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race or religion. 

Article 4 provided for an appropriate Jewish agency to be recognized 
as a public body, to advise and cooperate with the Administration in 
matters affecting the establishment of the Jewish national home. Article 
6 was of particular importance: 

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights 
and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, 
shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions, and 
shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred 
to in Article 4, close settlement by the Jews on the land, including 
state lands and waste lands not required for public purposes. 



[ 36 ] 






It is difficult — indeed impossible — -to reconcile the provisions of this 
Mandate with those contained in the Covenant of the League of Na- 
tions, under which it purported to be issued, which laid down that the 
well-being and development of the inhabitants of Palestine at the time 
of its occupation form a sacred trust for civilization, and that they 
could be provisionally recognized as an independent nation, subject to 
the rendering of advice and assistance by a Mandatory. It is on these 
grounds, among others, that the Arab population has, from the earliest 
days of the Mandate, claimed that the Mandate is devoid of authority. 
They feel that Great Britain is exercising a Mandate, not on behalf 
of the population of Palestine, but on behalf of a foreign power — the 
Zionist organization of the world. They have seen that power pouring 
Jewish immigrants into Palestine by the tens of thousands, purchasing 
very large areas of land hitherto held by Arabs, holding it under condi- 
tions which preclude resale, and leasing it only to Jews, and even to 
them only on condition that none but a Jew may be employed on the 
land so leased. It is no matter for wonder that the Arab community 
of Palestine lives in a state of constant fear of the possible conditions 
of an unknown future. 

The Jewish settlements in Palestine have been a remarkable achieve- 
ment. Most attention has been drawn to the agricultural settlements. 
These have been widely advertised, possibly in view of the insistence in 
Article 6 of the Mandate that close settlement by Jews on the land 
should be encouraged, possibly also, in part, because the romance and 
adventure inherent in these settlements are a stimulus to generous sup- 
port of the movement. The emphasis placed on this branch of the work 
of the Zionist organization is, however, disproportionate. As is pointed 
out in the Report of the Royal Commission, "the proportion of workers 
on the land (earners) to the Jewish population . . . today is 6.4%. m 
The great mass of the Jewish immigrants are not workers on the land, 
but residents of the towns. The population of one town, Tel Aviv, far 
exceeds in number the total population of all the agricultural settle- 
ments. This is not to say that the Jewish settlements are unimportant. 
They are the very remarkable result of the combined application of 
outstanding technical skill, abounding energy and practically unlimited 
resources provided by the generosity of Jewish communities in many 
lands. But the great majority of the Jewish population of Palestine to- 
day consists of skilled and unskilled workers in industry and on public 
works, industrialists, tradesmen, persons living on their private re- 
sources and professional men of all types. The number in these last 
two classes is very large, and in some directions that of professional 



1 Cmd. $479, p. "5- 



[ 37 ] 



men is out of all proportion to the needs of the community. Evidence 
was tendered to the Royal Commission that in Tel Aviv there was one 
doctor to every 161 persons, in Palestine as a whole one doctor for every 
560 persons, while in the United Kingdom there is one doctor for about 
1,085 persons. 

Industrial development is an essential to the prosperity of the Jewish 
section of the population, which has grown from 55,000 in 1918 s to at 
least 500,000 at the present time. In 1942 the value of the output of 
industrial workers was £30,000,000. Apart from war supplies, iron and 
steel articles, textiles, leather goods, foodstuffs, chemicals and pharma- 
ceutical preparations, drainage pipes and glass, essential oils and lorries 
were produced by Jewish industry in Palestine. 3 This phenomenal 
development has been due to three main causes — the provision of cheap 
capital by what Professor Bentwich describes as "philanthropic— capi- 
talist instruments," protection of industry by carefully regulated tariffs, 
and the important monopoly for the production of electric power and 
light granted by the government to Mr. Pinhas Rutenberg, a Russian 
Jewish engineer, and now exploited by the Palestine Electric Corpora- 
tion. Some of the conditions of this monopolistic concession are re- 
markable, not least the postponement of payment of customs duty on 
imported material "until the profits of the Company, after writing off 
amortization, depreciation and reserve, are first sufficient to enable 
the Company to pay a dividend of at least 8% per annum tax free."* 

For the years 1920-1936 the principle of "economic absorptive capac- 
ity" governed the number of immigrant Jews on the Labor schedule. 
This principle was first laid down in the Churchill Memorandum of 
June 3, IQ22. S "This immigration cannot be so great in volume as to 
exceed whatever may be the economic capacity of the country at the 
time to absorb new arrivals." It was reaffirmed in the letter dated 
February 13, 1931, from the Prime Minister, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald 
to Dr. Weizmann, 8 which the Prime Minister described as "the author- 
itative interpretation of the White Paper." 7 In that letter it was stated 
that the criterion which would guide the Government in fixing the 
number of Jewish immigrants would be the principle of economic ab- 
sorptive capacity. It is, however, clear that if philanthropic capital is 
available, irrespective of profit, electric power in quantity at very low 
cost, and protection by means of tariffs and exemption from taxation, 
industry could be artificially expanded to great dimensions, and "ab- 



2 Great Britain and Palestine, 191^1936, R.I.I.A., p. 24. 
R N. Bentwich, Judcca lives again, pp. 58 to 61. 
* Quoted in Jeffries, Palestine; the Reality, p. 434. 
& The Times, February 14 193 1. 

[ 38 ] 



B Cmd. 1700 of 1922, 

7 Cmd, 3692 of 1930. 



sorptive capacity" provided for very large numbers of Jewish immi- 
grants. It would indeed be in the power of the Zionist organizations 
so to manipulate "absorptive capacity" as, in their judgment, circum- 
stances might require. 

This question was considered with care by the Palestine Royal Com- 
mission, which pointed out the dangers inherent in the application of 
that principle alone. They gave their reasons for reaching the conclu- 
sion that political and psychological factors should also be taken into 
account in determining the numbers in the Labor schedule, and that a 
"political high level" should be fixed at 12,000 per annum for the next 
five years. 8 The importance of the decision and its effect on the develop- 
ment of the National Home may be judged from the fact that in the 
period from the beginning of 1933 to August, 1936, the number of 
Jewish immigrants exceeded 156,000 — a figure much greater than the 
total of recorded Jewish immigration from 1920 to 1932 inclusive. 
The reason for this remarkable movement in the year 1933 and suc- 
ceeding years is to be found in events in Germany. The Nuremberg 
legislation to safeguard the purity of the German race and the abomi- 
nable treatment of the Jews in Germany under the Nazi regime resulted 
in a mass movement of refugees from that country, and Palestine came 
to be regarded as the chief haven of refuge for German, and later also 
for Austrian Jews. As anti-Semitism spread in its more acute forms 
to other areas of Europe, that position became even more important, 
and great pressure was exerted on the Palestine Government and on the 
Government of the United Kingdom to open the door to Palestine still 
wider. In view of the refusal of other countries to admit refugees save 
in inadequate numbers, the demand was natural, but it ran counter to 
the policy recommended by the Royal Commission and subsequently 
adopted by the British Government. In the years 1937 to 1942 inclu- 
sive, the number of immigrant Jews was 50,197. 

The immigration of the Jews into Palestine has been conducted with 
outstanding ability. The Jewish Agency and the National Federation 
of Labor {Histadriith) have organized the recruitment, transport and 
settlement of those admitted on the Labor schedule, with amazing 
success. Criticism has been made in the past by the orthodox section of 
Jewry in Palestine that politics rather than religious devotion have been 
considered by the recruiting authorities, and it is, in fact, remarkable 
that, whereas in the older settlements which were founded before the 
time of the Balfour Declaration the synagogue was the center of the 
village life, in the later settlements that position is occupied by the vil- 

8 Cmd. 5479 of 1937, pp. 300 and 306. 

B See Great Britain and Palestine — 1915-1936. R.I.I.A., pp, 62 et $eq, 

[ 39 1 



Iage school. Politics are now far more obvious than religious enthusiasm, 
and, to quote Dr. Toynbee, Zionism is "in essence a secular, economico- 
political expression of Jewish national aspirations." The Zionist move- 
ment today is definitely an urge of political nationalism, and the Jewish 
settlement is no longer regarded as a settlement of Palestinian Jews in 
Palestine — if it were ever so regarded — but of national Jews in Eretz 
Israel. Therein lies the tragic impossibility of reconciliation between 
immigrant Jew and aboriginal Arab. 

Judging by recorded statements of Zionist leaders It is fair to con- 
clude that, at the outset, the policy of Zionism did not aim at political 
dominance in Palestine. At the tenth Zionist Congress, held at Basle in 
August, 1911, the President made a statement, from which the follow- 
ing is extracted : 

Only those suffering from gross ignorance or actuated by 
malice, could accuse us of the desire of establishing an independent 
Jewish Kingdom. . . . The aim of Zionism is the erection for the 
Jewish people of a publicly recognized, legally secured home in 
Palestine. Not a Jewish State, but a home in the ancient land of 
our forefathers where we can live a Jewish life without oppression 
and persecution. What we demand is that the Jewish immigrant 
to Palestine be given the opportunity of naturalizing as a citizen 
without limitation and that he can live unhindered in accordance 
with Jewish customs . . . that and nothing else is our aim. 10 

In the introduction to his History of Zionism — written during 1918, 
Mr. Sokolov, at that time President of the Zionist Organization, wrote : 

It has been said, and is still being obstinately repeated by anti- 
Zionists again and again, that Zionism aims at the creation of an 
independent "Jewish State." But this is wholly fallacious, The 
"Jewish State" was never a part of the Zionist programme. 

Dr. Weizmann is reported to have declared at a meeting of Govern- 
ment officials in Palestine held on April 27, 1918: 

All fears expressed openly or secretly by the Arabs that they are 
to be ousted from their present position are due either to a funda- 
mental misconception of Zionist aims or to the malacious activities 
of our common enemies. 11 

Finally Dr. Weizmann in an address to the Zionist organization in 

1931, of which he was then President, said: 

10 Quoted in Jczvish-Arab Affairs. Jerusalem, June, 1931, pp. 7 and 8. 

11 Palestine, May 18, 1918. 

[ 40 ] 



The Arabs must be made to feel, by deed as well as word, that, 
whatever the future numerical relationships of the two nations in 
Palestine, we on our part contemplate no political domination. But 
they must also remember that we on our side will never submit 
to any political domination. 12 

That principle was also adopted by the British government, and was 
announced, before the Mandate was actually granted by the Council 
of the League of Nations, in the Churchill Memorandum of June 3, 
1922. 13 It included the following sentences: 

Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the 
purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases 
have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as 
England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such 
expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor 
have they at any time contemplated . . . the disappearance or the 
subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in 
Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms 
of the [Balfour] Declaration referred to do not contemplate that 
Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National 
Home, but that such a home should be founded in Palestine. . , . 

Had the Jewish authorities been content with the original object of 
settlement in Palestine — "a Jewish life without oppression and persecu- 
tion" in accordance with Jewish customs, the national home would have 
presented no difficulty. The Jews could have entered and settled as so 
many did in the P.LC.A. settlements — founded in many cases long 
before the Balfour Declaration — in friendly relationship with their 
Arab fellow-citizens, and themselves loyal citizens of Palestine, The 
unfortunate fact is that the Jewish immigration today is not composed 
of Jews who, on religious grounds, wish to return to the land of Zion, 
in order to lead a Jewish life, without oppression and persecution, in 
accordance with Jewish customs. Rather is it composed of Jews, largely 
devoid of religious conviction, animated by a spirit of political national- 
ism, and determined to secure domination in Palestine, the homeland 
of the Arab for at least 1,300 years. No effort has been made to 
coalesce with the existing population. On the contrary, there is extreme 
divergence between the virile occidentalism of the immigrant and the 
conservative orientalism of the mass of the resident population. After 
its description of the organization of Jewish policy in Palestine the 
Royal Commission writes : "it would be difficult to find in history a 



12 Quoted in Bcntwich— Jwfoa lives again, p. 

13 Cmd. 1700 of ie>22. 

[ 41 ] 



141. 



precedent for the establishment of so distinct an imperium in im- 
perio." 14 

The policy of His Majesty's Government for the future government 
of Palestine is that contained in the Statement of Policy issued in May, 
1939. 15 It was issued after consultations with Jewish and Arab repre- 
sentatives, including among the latter representatives of Egypt, Iraq, 
Saudi Arabia and the Yemen. The salient feature of this White Paper 
is the decision to limit the further immigration of Jews into Palestine 
to 75,000 in the five years from 1939; after that period no further 
immigration of Jews will be permitted unless the Arabs of Palestine are 
prepared to acquiesce in it. In other words, at long last the British Gov- 
ernment has recognized that Palestine is an Arab land, and that it 
shall remain an Arab land unless the Arabs decide otherwise. The sec- 
ond most important point regards the future constitution of the Pales- 
tine State: 

at the end of five years from the restoration of peace and order, an 
appropriate body representative of the people of Palestine and of 
His Majesty's Government will be set up to review the working of 
the constitutional arrangement during the transitional period, and 
to consider and make recommendations regarding the constitution 
of the independent Palestine State. 10 

The intention of the British Government is that within ten years 
Palestine shall be an independent state in Treaty relations with Great 
Britain. Inevitably the majority in that State will be Arabs, but the 
Jewish population of the national home in Palestine will be a forceful 
and well disciplined minority. If they are prepared to accept that posi- 
tion and to live in Palestine as loyal Palestinian citizens, their influence 
will be very great, and the advance of Palestine will be rapid. If they 
refuse to cooperate, they will doubtless be able to make things difficult 
for the Palestine Government, without gain to themselves. 

In view of the latest statement of policy by His Majesty's Govern- 
ment, the position and authority of the Jewish Agency in Palestine 
will not be required in the interest of the national home, now securely 
established. The existence of that authority has emphasized the apart- 
ness of the Jewish section of the Palestinian population. in the past, and 
has also led to a suspicion on the part of the Arab population that the 
interests of the Jews were more forcefully represented than those of 
the Arabs for the consideration of the Palestine Government. The 
Royal Commission recorded its opinion that among the factors causing 

15 Cmd. 6019 of 1939. 






14 Cmd. 5479 of 1937, PP- 48 and 49. 
1U Cmd. 6019 of 1939, p. 7. 



[ 42 ] 



the outbreaks of violence on the part of the Arabs was the Arab belief 

that 

the Jews can always get their way by means denied to the Arabs, . . . 
Based in general on the status of the Jewish Agency both in Jeru- 
salem and in London, this belief was greatly strengthened by the 
publication of Mr. MacDonald's letter to Dr. Weizmann in 
193 1 17 

In future the representation of Jewish interests in Palestine may very 
safely be left to the local organizations which are staffed by able men, 
and to the High Commissioner and his government. There is no pos- 
sibility of a coalescence of the Jewish and Arab sections of the popula- 
tion so long as the former are in a specially privileged position in rela- 
tion to the Palestine Government. 

Though Palestine may properly be regarded as the spiritual home 
of every devout Jew, there is no proper ground to conclude that it is 
the haven of refuge for Jews unjustly persecuted. The solution to per- 
secution in Europe is to prevent it. If that be impossible, the havens of 
refuge should be in those countries, such as Great Britain, the United 
States of America, and the U.S.S.R., among others, who sympathize 
with the sufferers and have a sense of the dignity of man as man. It 
is unfair and indeed hypocritical to express sympathy, while refusing 
to accept the sufferers into one's own country and compelling their 
acceptance in Palestine, where they are not welcomed. Were the doors 
of Great Britain, the United States, the U.S.S.R. and France thrown 
open, the problem of persecuted Jewry would be immediately solved. 

"The best service which well wishers of the National Home can 
render it, is to recognize frankly that the situation in Palestine has 
reached a deadlock and to bend their minds to finding a way out." 18 
The way out is indicated in the Statement of Policy of 1939. , 

17 Cmd. 5479 of IQ37» P- "I. 1& Cmd. 5479 of 1937, p. 125. 

[Reprinted from The Fortnightly, December, 1944, by the kind per- 
mission of the author] 



[ 43 ] 



VIII 

A LETTER BY 
THE HONORABLE J. W. BAILEY 

United States Senator from North Carolina 

to 

Greensboro Committee for the Abrogation of 

the White Paper 

Relating to 

Jewish Immigration into Palestine 

Mr. Fred G. Rypins, Greensboro Committee for the Abrogation of the 
White Paper f Greensboro, North Carolina 

Dear Mr. Rypins ; 

I thank you for the letter signed by yourself and a number of other 
citizens for whom I have a high regard. I wish to reply, but I must say 
that it is impossible for me to fully discuss important matters by mail. 
I am writing briefly. 

The thing that gives me most concern is the fact that our Jewish 
fellow citizens and their friends are participating in a movement to 
create a Jewish pressure group in our country for the purpose of bring- 
ing about changes in the policy of other nations. It is my view that the 
American people have nothing to do with the internal affairs of other 
nations. We have no rights in the matter of immigration in Palestine 
nor do we have rights with respect to the White Paper. 

We have nothing to do whatever with the immigration policy in 
Palestine or in any other country except our own. We deny the right 
of other countries to bring pressure upon us with respect to immigra- 
tion and it is our duty to refrain from doing so with respect to other 
nations what we would not have other nations do to us. It is a matter 
for the British to determine. So far as the present controversy is con- 
cerned, we are not parties to the White Paper nor are we parties to the 
Treaty of Versailles. 

I have been greatly concerned by evidence of a rising tide of antip- 
athy to the Jews in our country. I wish to avoid anything like an anti- 
Jewish movement here. I defended the Jews against the Ku Klux and I 
do not wish to see Ku Klux persecution or any other sort of persecution 

[ 44 ] 






started here. But if the Jews put forward a group movement they may 
rest assured that there will be a counter movement and it will be quite 
fearful. 

The Jews should not set the example nor provide the provocation for 
a counter Jewish movement in this country. If they should do this the 
situation for them would be much worse than they now imagine. We 
ought not to have racial or religious pressure groups of any sort in 
this country. The Jew is an American citizen. He has the right of peti- 
tion. But in the absence of a wrong by this country to the Jews as a 
race or group, a Jewish movement ought not be formed, for the reason 
that such a movement will be the provocation for a counter movement, 
if for no other reason. 

All the stronger is this consideration in view of the fact that we are 
now at war and national unity is indispensable. 

The object in view with respect to the Wagner resolution and the 
movement to abrogate the White Paper is the same. Should the White 
Paper be abrogated, promptly upon the end of the war there will be a 
migration to Palestine, which would upset the balance there. I agree 
that the movement to abrogate the White Paper is not as definite as the 
Wagner resolution but they are a part of one whole. I might say that if 
there is a difference it is a difference between the camel's nose and the 
camel — and at any rate each group contemplates a Jewish group for 
purposes of propaganda and agitation in this country concerning for- 
eign policy and relating to the rights of other nations. 

We have protests here now from five nations against the Wagner 
resolutions and the matter has become so serious that the Chief of Staff 
of the United States has appeared before the Committee on Foreign 
Relations of the Senate, I do not think that General Marshall would 
have appeared without the approval of the Commander in Chief, that is 
the President. 

Representations have been made to me by an officer representing the 
State Department as to the seriousness of this situation. We cannot 
afford to irritate the Moslem world. We cannot afford to antagonize 
Egypt and the Arabs, and the Jews ought not ask us to do anything 
that would irritate these nations. Good relations with them at this time 
are indispensable to our war effort. Agitation in America for the abro- 
gation of the White Paper would be no less irritating than agitation for 
the passage of the Wagner-Taft resolution, 

I totally disagree with you in your statement that what you are at- 
tempting to bring about is an essential feature of the thing for which 
wc are waging this war. We are not waging this war in order to provide 
immigration to Palestine for the Jews nor are we waging this war in 
order to establish a Jewish state in Palestine. We are waging this war 

[ 45 ] 



because we have it to do to defend our country, and in order that we 
may wage it successfully we must not necessarily make enemies. I do 
not think any American soldier will say that he is fighting in order to 
encourage the migration of jews to Palestine, or in order to erect a 
Jewish commonwealth. 

Turn the picture around and imagine Great Britain demanding that 
we shall open up New Mexico or California or North Carolina to im- 
migration of the Jews from Europe. It can not be contended that there 
is less room here than there is in Palestine. 

But the main consideration is that since the United States has en- 
tered upon its international destiny the American people must learn 
that they have no rights whatever respecting the internal affairs of 
other nations. I have observed the agitation about India. India is not 
an American affair. 

Suppose the British should set up an agitation as to the conduct of 
affairs in Alaska and should demand that we open up Alaska to the 
people of India or the people of Russia. Somehow we have gotten our- 
selves into the belief that we can start agitation here concerning the 
conduct of other nations and the administration of their affairs. Unless 
we can get rid of that sort of thing it would be better for us to become 
isolationists although I consider that impossible. 

These are my views. I readily grant you your right to have different 
views. I feel sure you will grant me the right to the views which I am 
herein setting out and to which I have been driven by very careful study. 

While we are thinking about our friendly feeling for our fellow citi- 
zens who are Jewish, let us consider that we have a duty to ourselves 
with respect to Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan, Iraq, Arabia and Egypt. 
It is immensely important at the present moment that we should do 
nothing to offend the Moslem world. They occupy a great territory 
indispensable to our success in the war effort. The American Jews 
ought not to ask us to make enemies of our nation of the inhabitants 
of these countries. 

Let me add that I know that every movement here either for the 
abrogation of the White Paper or for the establishment of a Jewish 
state in Palestine is at once spread throughout the Moslem world by 
our German enemies and very greatly to our prejudice in the present 
extreme emergency. Should the Jews succeed in bringing about a state 
of irritation on this subject and the war be prolonged on that account 
with the cost of life involved, the reaction here would be something 
that the Jews would always regret. 

With best wishes. 

Very truly yours, 

J. W. BAILEY 

March 18, 1944- 

[46] 



IX 

A LETTER BY 
ROGER H. SOLTAU 

Professor of Political Science, 

American University of Beirut, Lebanon 

Written in Reply to 

Proposals Made in a Letter to the New York Times Relative to 

Palestine by Dr. Judah L. Magnes 

To the Editor 

The New York Times 

Sir: 

Any statement by Dr. Magnes will always command the earnest 
attention of students of Palestinian affairs. For some twenty years 
many of them have kept on hoping that his voice might finally prevail 
in Jewish councils, and bring about the abandonment of a political 
Zionism that makes Jews and Arabs rival claimants for the possession 
and control of Palestine, in favor of the more purely and non-competi- 
tive cultural concept of a Jewish National Home in that country. 

To many of us, therefore, the letter of Dr. Magnes in the Times 
of February 17 will have come as something of a shock. The suggestion 
for a parity that would make of Palestine neither a Jewish nor an 
Arab state, but one under the perpetual tutelage of a Middle East 
Regional Council, is one that runs counter to all prevailing trends of 
both Arab and Zionist opinion, and it is surprising to find so well- 
informed a person as Dr. Magnes so confident that it can be accept- 
able to both parties. The writer has no reason to think that things have 
changed much in this respect since he left the Middle East last June, 
and many years* residence in that part of the world, including frequent 
visits to Palestine, where he has many friends among both Arabs and 
Jews, make him feel certain that the parity-tutelage policy has no chance 
of acceptance. Why indeed should the Arab accept it? To him, Pales- 
tine is an Arab land. His claim to it rests, like that of the Jew, on con- 
quest followed by an occupation and settlement both longer in time 

[ 47 ] 



and more thorough in extent than that of ancient Israel. The Mandate 
policy forced on him the acceptance, under constant protest, of a Jewish 
immigration which may have brought some material benefits, but has 
rudely broken into the traditional harmony of his civilization. To the 
Arab, the Jews are aliens, intruders, who have no more rights to Pales- 
tine on the ground of previous occupation two thousand years ago than 
the present-day Italians have to England or France as descendants of 
the Roman conquerors. Nor indeed have any other powers the right 
to dispose, in favor of the Jews or of anybody else, of a Palestine 
which is not theirs to give away. The Balfour Declaration is therefore 
''binding" on no one, either in law or in morals. 

The Arabs are, however, reluctantly willing to make the best of an 
unfortunate situation and accept the presence of a permanent Jewish 
minority, as long as it is a minority in an Arab State linked on to other 
Arab countries; nor would they object to the security of this minority 
being guaranteed by the United Nations organization of which Pales- 
tine would be a member. They welcomed the British White Paper of 
1939 as recognition by the British Government that the essential 
purpose of the Balfour Declaration had been fulfilled, that there was a 
Jewish National Home in Palestine, but that no further extension of 
the Jewish population could be envisaged without jeopardizing the wel- 
fare of the very Arabs whose rights had been safeguarded in the 
Declaration. But the White Paper marks the limit; beyond its pres- 
ent policy nothing can possibly be accepted by the Arab world, both 
in and out of Palestine. The homelessness of present-day Jewry is 
indeed a tragic problem, but the Arab is in no wise responsible for it 
and does not see why it should be remedied at his sole expense because 
the Romans expelled the Jews from Palestine two thousand years ago. 
Jewish homelessness is a world problem, and the sympathy expressed 
for homeless Jewry in such countries as the United States and Great 
Britain would prove more impressive to Arab ears if it were accom- 
panied by proposals to receive large contingents of Jewish immigrants 
in those two countries. One third of Palestine is now Jewish, and at 
the same rate America should admit eighty-five million and Britain 
fifteen. But we need not go so far. Dr. Magnes estimates at one and a 
half million the number of homeless Jews. If the two above-mentioned 
countries were to receive them all, their total population of 175 millions 
would only be increased by less than 1%, thirty times less than is even 
now demanded of the Arabs. 

National self-determination may not be the last word in political 
wisdom, but it is still accepted as the normal principle of international 
relations, and the sufferings of present-day Jewry cannot, in all good 

[ 48 ] 









conscience, be put forward as a reason for denying its application to 
the Arab world today. Any solution of the Palestinian problem which 
deprives that country of its right to be an Arab state, either separate or 
linked with its neighbors, can only mean the perpetuation of unrest 
and trouble. It will spell insecurity for the Jews and cripple the social 
and economic development of the whole Middle East. And to those 
Zionists who would still urge the imposing of a settlement in con- 
formity with their exasperated desires, we would answer with the words 
spoken to such hotheads by Dr. Magnes himself at a Hebrew University 
lecture some sixteen years ago: "If we cannot find ways of peace and 
understanding, if the only way of establishing the Jewish National 
Home is upon the bayonets of some empire, our whole enterprise is 
not worth while, and it is better that the Eternal People, that has out- 
lived many a mighty empire, should possess its soul in patience and plan 
and wait, It is one of the great civilizing tasks before the Jewish people 
to try to enter the promised land, not in the Joshua way, but bringing 
peace, and culture, hard work and sacrifice and love, and a determina- 
tion to do nothing that cannot be justified before the conscience of the 
world." 

Roger H. Soltau 
February 21, 1945. 






1 49 ] 



X 

A LETTER BY 
PHILIP MARSHALL BROWN 

Author and Former Professor of International Law 
Princeton University 

TO 

The New York Herald Tribune, April 8, 1944, 
Relative to a Jewish State 

[Reprinted by the kind permission of the author] 

To the New York Herald Tribune: 

The sympathies of all decent people must go out to the Jews in their 
hour of agony. The dispersal of thousands of homeless Jews presents 
a grave problem for the United Nations, particularly for Great Britain. 
Our sympathies, however, should not blind us to the facts of the situa- 
tion. We cannot be of much constructive help unless we do face the 
facts. 

I was in Palestine in 1918 when the first Zionist Commission visited 
the country. I was there again in 1929. I have made a conscientious 
study of the problem and believe the essential facts to be as follows : 

1. The Balfour Declaration in favor of a "national home'* for the 
Jews in Palestine, issued, like the Emancipation Proclamation by Lin- 
coln, during a war, was definitely and lamentably vague. The interpreta- 
tion placed on it by the Zionists as meaning a "national state" has 
created enormous difficulties. 

2. Palestine is too small and unproductive to support a considerable 
immigration except as a highly industrialized state. 

3. The establishment of any Jewish state in Palestine, especially a 
communistic state, would gravely unsettle the whole Middle East, 

4. No responsible British official in the Middle East has ever believed 
that a national Jewish state would be feasible except as created and 
maintained by British bayonets. 

5. The demands now pressed on the British Government to abrogate 
the White Paper have served to arouse the fury and to consolidate the 

[ 50 ] 



whole of the Arabic world in the Middle East against the Jews. They 
have seriously embarrassed the United Nations in the conduct of the 



war. 



6. These extreme demands have served to arouse latent anti-Semitism 
everywhere, and notably here in the United States. 

7. Many prominent Jews are opposed to Zionist demands and feel 
gravely concerned over the situation. 

Legitimate concern for the successful prosecution of the war and 
for a generous just treatment of oppressed Jews should make us all the 
more careful how we should proceed in this hour of trial for all peoples 
struggling for freedom and a sound international order. 



Philip Marshall Brown 



Washington, D.C., April 5, 1944. 



I 51 1 



XI 

A LETTER BY 
STUART C. DODD 

Professor of Sociology 

American University of Beirut, Lebanon 

to 

The New York Herald Tribune, August io, 1944* 

Relative to Planks on Palestine 

[Reprinted by the kind permission of the author] 

To the Neiv York Herald Tribune: 

In their eagerness to get the Jewish vote both the Republicans and 
the Democrats have inserted into their platforms a plank which urges 
unlimited immigration of Jews into Palestine, As America hears the 
Jewish voice, but seldom hears the Arab side of the case, it may interest 
fair-minded voters to realize a few consequences of this plank. These 
consequences are as seen by one who has lived for sixteen years out 
there with warm friendships among both Jews and Arabs. Also, as the 
organizer of the only poll of public opinion held in that part of the 
world, he has been in an unusual position to observe the trends. 

1. The Arabs intend again to resist unlimited Jewish immigration 
with bloodshed, if such immigration is again imposed on them by force. 
To urge Jewish migration there is to offer Jews, not the security they 
so urgently need, but a threat of new pogroms. This plank tends to- 
wards civil war in Palestine, with America and England taking sides 
against each other. 

2. The international security called for in the platforms is contra- 
dicted by this plank. For it tends to convert the present vast Arab 
good will toward America into bitter resentment and active enmity. 
Millions of Arabs will see this plank as ruthless imperialism crushing 
down their rights because of mere expediency in our domestic election. 
This American imperialism speaks louder to them than our claims to 
be fighting for freedom. That Americans do not generally see it as 
imperialism is because America is ignorant of the Arab side of the 
Zionist controversy. 

[ S^ ] 



3. America has a large and increasing stake in the oil fields of Arabia. 
In so far as we make bitter enemies of the Arabs the Palestinian plank 
tends towards a future choice before us of losing those oil fields or 
keeping them with the bayonet and the lives of American soldiers. 

The considerations above do not enter into the justice of the con- 
troversy between Jews and Arabs. The question raised in this letter is 
whether the Republicans and Democrats are wise in inviting Jewish 
votes at a cost of reduced international security by inciting further 

conflict abroad. 

Stuart C Dodd 

Hartford, Conn., Aug. 8, 1944. 



[ 53 ] 



ADDITIONAL READINGS ON PALESTINE 

Antonius, George: The Arab Awakening, the story of the Arab na- 
tional movement. Philadelphia, Lippincott, 1939.* 
Grant, Elihu: Palestine, Our Holy Land (pamphlet). Baltimore, 



1940, 



-Palestine Today (pamphlet). Baltimore, 1938. 



Hocking, William Ernest : The Spirit of World Politics, with spe- 
cial studies of the Near East. New -York, Macmillan, 1932. 

Jastrow, Morris: Zionism and the Future of Palestine, the fallacies 
and dangers of political Zionism. New York, Macmillan, 191 9.* 

Jeffries, Joseph M. N. : Palestine: The Reality. London, New York 
etc., Longman, Green and Co., 1939.* 

Katibah, Habib L: The New Spirit in Arab Lands, published pri- 
vately (1940) by the author. 

Malti, Michel G. : "Is Zionism a Solution?" (an article in The Arab 
World, autumn issue, 1944). 

Richmond, E. T. : "Dictatorship in the Holy Land" (an article in 
Nineteenth Century and After, February 1938, pp. 186-192). 

Sheean, Vincent : Personal History (chapter entitled "Holy Land" ) , 
New York Literary Guild, 1935. 

Wysner, Gloria M. : Dilemma in Palestine. Bulletin issued (November 
1944) by the Committee on Work Among Moslems. 156 Fifth 
Ave., New York 10, N.Y. 

* Out of print, but obtainable in large libraries. 






[ 54]